2016 (3) TMI 616 - AT - Central Excise

Court sets aside orders due to failure to comply with directions, stresses importance of adherence to legal procedures.

The court found that the authorities failed to comply with the directions of the High Court, leading to the set-aside of orders. The Assistant ... Rebate claim – non-following of procedure - lapse or willful omission committed - authorities below have not carried out the direction given in terms of para 8 of the judgement - Held that:- The Assistant Commissioner has not doubted the factum of export of final products carried out by the appellant during the period from May, 2000 to Mar. 01. It was also noticed in para 8 by Hon’ble High Court that it is not the case of the authority that there was any other lapse or willful omission committed by the appellant in making the claim or the factum of export was not proved. When a clear fact finding is made in favour of appellant nothing more is left to the Adjudicating authority to doubt the conduct of the appellant. Therefore, the Adjudicating Authority is directed to carry out direction of the Hon’ble High Court in its letter and spirit to conclude the issue following the ratio laid down by the apex court in the case of Union of India Vs Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd. Reported (1991 (9) TMI 72 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ). It is expected that the authority carrying out the direction shall dispose the matter within a month of receipt of this order. Issues: Failure to carry out directions given by the Hon'ble High Court, Contempt of court by authorities, Failure to exercise discretionary power by the Assistant Commissioner, Challenge by Revenue before the apex court, Non-furnishing of appropriate documents by the appellant, Failure of authorities to appreciate facts found by the Hon'ble court.The judgment revolves around the failure of the authorities to comply with the directions issued by the Hon'ble High Court in a previous case. The Hon'ble High Court had clearly stated that the appellant was entitled to a rebate, as the factum of export was not in dispute, and the Assistant Commissioner had the discretionary power to grant the claim. However, the Assistant Commissioner failed to exercise this power, leading to the orders being set aside. The court directed the Assistant Commissioner to revive the appellant's application for rebate and pass orders expeditiously. The submission by the appellant highlighted that the Revenue had challenged the High Court's order before the apex court but no stay had been granted. It was argued that since no fault was found with the appellant, the authorities' actions amounted to contempt of court. On the other hand, the Departmental Representative contended that the appellant had not furnished appropriate documents. The court emphasized that the authorities failed to appreciate the clear findings of the High Court and directed the Adjudicating Authority to follow the court's directions and conclude the matter promptly.The judgment underscores the importance of authorities adhering to the directions given by higher courts and exercising discretionary powers judiciously. It highlights the need for meticulous consideration of facts and compliance with legal procedures. The failure to appreciate clear findings and the lack of proper documentation can lead to legal consequences and undermine the principles of justice. The case serves as a reminder of the legal obligations of authorities and the consequences of non-compliance with court directives. It emphasizes the significance of upholding judicial decisions and ensuring fair treatment in legal proceedings.