https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359039 A tribunal cannot assume execution jurisdiction over its own final orders after an appeal has been disposed of unless that power is expressly conferred by statute. Here, a miscellaneous application sought implementation of an earlier order directing release of seized goods, but the Tribunal found the departmental communication did not amount to a refusal of release and, more importantly, that it had become functus officio after final disposal of the appeal. Rule 41 of the CESTAT Procedural Rules could not be expanded to create substantive execution powers or compel implementation of the final order. The miscellaneous application was therefore not maintainable and was dismissed. en-us Tue, 13 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 13 May 2019 16:34:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359039 A tribunal cannot assume execution jurisdiction over its own final orders after an appeal has been disposed of unless that power is expressly conferred by statute. Here, a miscellaneous application sought implementation of an earlier order directing release of seized goods, but the Tribunal found the departmental communication did not amount to a refusal of release and, more importantly, that it had become functus officio after final disposal of the appeal. Rule 41 of the CESTAT Procedural Rules could not be expanded to create substantive execution powers or compel implementation of the final order. The miscellaneous application was therefore not maintainable and was dismissed. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 13 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359039