TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Revenue commissioners apologize for four-year delay in implementing tribunal order, contempt proceedings disposed</h1> CESTAT Allahabad disposed of contempt proceedings against revenue commissioners who failed to implement a tribunal order dated 12.09.2019 for four years. ... Initiation of Contempt proceeding against the concerned Commissioner - tendering unconditional apology for delay in implementing the Final Order dated 12.09.2019 of this Hon’ble Tribunal - HELD THAT:- The statement made by the revenue is not convincing, in the miscellaneous application that they did not implement the order of CESTAT for the reason of the legal opinion given to them. In our view the issue is well settled by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Krishna Sales (P) Ltd., [1993 (9) TMI 124 - SUPREME COURT] wherein it is held that If the authorities are of the opinion that the goods ought not to be released pending the Appeal, the straight forward course for them is to obtain an Order of Stay or other appropriate direction from the Tribunal or the Supreme Court, as the case may be. Without obtaining such an Order they cannot refuse to implement the Order under Appeal. As is well-known, mere filing of an Appeal does not operate as a Stay or suspension of the Order appealed against. The basic contention raised by the Revenue in their miscellaneous application is in respect of the cost imposed and the initiation of proceedings of contempt against the concerned Commissioner. Commissioner’s have by way of the present miscellaneous applications rendered an unconditional apology for the delay in implementing the Final Order dated 12.09.2019. The Government procedure takes time and courts have to take a balanced view in the matter while taking harsh views in the matter. There are number of clearances by various agencies which cause delay though such delay cannot be justified and we express unhappiness for the delay of 04 (Four) years in the matter but taking note of all the facts and circumstances stated in the application specifically the unconditional apology tendered by the concerned commissioners we are of the view that end of justice will be met for which the concerned officers are warned to be careful in dealing with the matters like this one. In similar situation Hon’ble Bombay High Court has in case of S.J. Enterprises [2022 (8) TMI 508 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] after taken note of the unconditional apologies tendered discharged the notice for contempt. In view of the unconditional apologies tendered, except the part whereby we have passed direction for implementation of Final Order No 71733-71742/2019 dated 12.09.2019 read with Misc Order No 70019/2021 dated 21.06.2021, all other parts of our order like imposition of cost and reference of the matter to the Hon’ble High Court for initiating contempt proceedings are reconsidered and set aside. Application disposed off. Issues Involved:1. Compliance with Tribunal Orders2. Delay in Implementation3. Legal Opinion and Stay Application4. Apology and Contempt ProceedingsSummary of Judgment:1. Compliance with Tribunal Orders:The matter was listed to report compliance with Miscellaneous Order No. 70121 of 2023 dated 09.11.2023. Revenue filed two miscellaneous applications seeking recall of the order to refer the matter to the High Court for consideration of contempt proceedings. The Revenue stated that they had complied with the Tribunal's orders by granting no objection for re-export of the gold in question.2. Delay in Implementation:The applicant tendered an unconditional apology for the delay in implementing the Final Order dated 12.09.2019. The delay was attributed to the Principal Commissioner of Customs, Noida, who took over on 03.10.2023 and was made aware of the orders on 24.11.2023. Various steps were taken, including seeking legal opinions and writing letters to relevant authorities, but the stay application was still pending before the High Court.3. Legal Opinion and Stay Application:The Revenue's contention that they did not implement the order due to legal opinion was not accepted. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court decision in Krishna Sales (P) Ltd., which held that authorities must obtain a stay order if they believe goods should not be released pending an appeal. Mere filing of an appeal does not operate as a stay.4. Apology and Contempt Proceedings:The Tribunal acknowledged the unconditional apology tendered by the concerned commissioners and noted the procedural delays in government operations. While expressing unhappiness over the four-year delay, the Tribunal decided that the end of justice would be met by warning the officers to be careful in future. The Tribunal referred to similar cases where unconditional apologies led to the discharge of contempt notices. Consequently, the Tribunal reconsidered and set aside the parts of the order imposing costs and referring the matter to the High Court for contempt proceedings.Conclusion:The Tribunal directed that except for the implementation of the Final Order dated 12.09.2019, all other parts of the order, including imposition of costs and reference to the High Court for contempt proceedings, are set aside. The miscellaneous applications filed by the Revenue were disposed of.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
