Tribunal orders refund, recommends inquiry for delay in Rs. 50,000 case. Commissioner's duty emphasized.

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, addressed the delay in implementing tribunal orders for refunding a deposited amount of Rs. 50,000. Despite the Commissioner's apology, the Tribunal dropped further proceedings against him and recommended an inquiry by the Central Board of Excise and Customs to identify those responsible for the delay. The Tribunal emphasized the Commissioner's duty to promptly act on tribunal orders and noted that the delay could not be solely attributed to the current Commissioner, who apologized for the delay.

---

---

Issues: Delay in implementing tribunal orders, refund of deposited amount, responsibility for delay, apology by Commissioner, further proceedings

In the case before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, the appellant filed an application seeking implementation of the tribunal's final order dated 3-9-2001, which allowed the appeal and directed refund of a deposited amount of Rs. 50,000. Despite repeated requests and letters to the customs authorities, no action was taken to assess the duty for clearance as per the tribunal's order. The appellant approached the Commissioner of Customs and the Chairman of C.B.E. & C. for refund and compliance, but received no response, leading to the filing of a miscellaneous application by the appellant. During the hearing on 22-4-2003, the Tribunal directed the Commissioner of Customs to file an affidavit responding to the delay in implementing the order, which was followed by subsequent affidavits and hearings to address the issue.

The Commissioner, in his affidavits, mentioned the refund of Rs. 50,000 and the final assessment of duty on the Bill of Entry. However, the Tribunal found the Commissioner's explanation unsatisfactory, noting that the Department was aware of the tribunal orders but failed to act promptly. The Commissioner's defense of not having a certified copy of the orders was deemed inadequate, especially considering the presence of a Departmental Representative in the case. The Tribunal emphasized the Commissioner's duty to verify the authenticity of orders when presented by the party. The Tribunal also considered the delay in implementing the orders, acknowledging that the present Commissioner, who assumed office on 11-11-2002, may not be solely responsible for the delay.

During the proceedings, the learned Counsel for the appellant sought permission to withdraw from the case due to lack of instructions from the appellant. Despite issuing a notice to the appellant, there was no response. The Tribunal refrained from delving into the reasons for the appellant's lack of response or inability to pay dues for clearance. An Amicus Curiae, Shri M. Chandrasekharan, submitted that the current Commissioner, who assumed office in 2002, should not be held entirely accountable for the delay. In light of the Commissioner's unqualified apology for the delay, the Tribunal accepted the apology and dropped further proceedings against him. The Tribunal recommended an inquiry by the Central Board of Excise and Customs to determine the individuals responsible for the delay in implementing the tribunal's orders.

In conclusion, the Tribunal acknowledged the delay in implementing the tribunal orders, addressed the refund of the deposited amount, considered the responsibility for the delay, accepted the Commissioner's apology, and recommended further investigation by the Central Board of Excise and Customs to identify those accountable for the delay.

---