2018 (4) TMI 1150 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal lacks authority to execute orders; stresses adherence to legal procedures

M/s. Jeevan Diesels And Electricals Ltd. Versus. CCE & ST, Pondicherry

The Tribunal dismissed the appellant's miscellaneous application seeking directions for the release of seized goods, emphasizing its lack of authority to ... Release of detained goods - execution or implementation of the Final order passed by the Tribunal - implementation pending outcome of review - Held that: - There is no express provision in the statute which empowers the Tribunal to execute the Final order passed by it disposing an appeal - When the Act does not provide for execution of Final orders passed by Tribunal, the Rules cannot be stretched to pass directions to implement the order - application dismissed being not maintainable. Issues:1. Application seeking directions to release seized goods in accordance with the Final Order dated 06.07.2017 passed by the Tribunal.2. Maintainability of the miscellaneous application for implementation of the Final order.Analysis:1. The appellant filed a miscellaneous application requesting directions from the Tribunal to release the seized goods as per the Final Order Non41176-41177/2017 dated 06.07.2017. The Managing Director of the appellant company argued that the Tribunal had directed the release of goods in the final order, but the department indicated a review by the Principal Chief Commissioner, Chennai, delaying the release process. The appellant contended that there was no stay against releasing the goods and urged the Tribunal to implement the final order.2. The Assistant Commissioner, representing the department, opposed the application stating that the letter from the department did not constitute a decision or order. It was argued that since the Tribunal had issued the final order and disposed of the appeal, the miscellaneous application was not maintainable. It was emphasized that the Tribunal becomes functus officio after issuing the final order, and there is no statutory provision for executing or implementing such orders.3. After hearing both parties, the Tribunal examined a letter dated 13.10.2017 from the department, which did not explicitly deny the release of goods but indicated a need to wait for the review outcome. The Tribunal noted that it lacks the authority to execute final orders it passes, as there is no provision in the statute empowering it to do so. Referring to Rule 41 of the CESTAT Procedural Rules, the Tribunal highlighted that it can issue necessary or expedient directions related to its orders but cannot extend this to execution orders. As the Act does not address the execution of final orders by the Tribunal, the Tribunal concluded that the miscellaneous application was not maintainable and dismissed it.This judgment clarifies the limitations of the Tribunal in executing final orders it issues, emphasizing the absence of statutory provisions for such actions. The decision underscores the importance of adherence to legal procedures and statutory frameworks governing the implementation of tribunal orders.