https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82032 The Tribunal stated that compliance with its order had to be reported by the respondents through the Joint Chief Departmental Representative, and that merely forwarding a copy of the order to the Collector was not enough. It criticised the Departmental Representative for treating transmission of the order as discharge of the reporting duty, especially where the Tribunal had directed reversal of the debit in the RG-23A Part II Account. Because there was no definitive report confirming whether the debit had in fact been reversed, the Tribunal granted limited further time and adjourned the matter for compliance verification. en-us Wed, 05 Aug 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 01 Jul 2011 14:54:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82032 The Tribunal stated that compliance with its order had to be reported by the respondents through the Joint Chief Departmental Representative, and that merely forwarding a copy of the order to the Collector was not enough. It criticised the Departmental Representative for treating transmission of the order as discharge of the reporting duty, especially where the Tribunal had directed reversal of the debit in the RG-23A Part II Account. Because there was no definitive report confirming whether the debit had in fact been reversed, the Tribunal granted limited further time and adjourned the matter for compliance verification. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 05 Aug 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82032