TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (12) TMI 160
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of duty, penalty and interest which have been recovered by the department by adjusting against rebate claims sanctioned to the applicant on export of its goods. 3.Applicant has stated that this Tribunal had, vide Order No. C1/2089/WZB/2003, dated 15-9-2003, waived the condition of pre-deposit of penalty of Rs. 66,00,257/- and Rs. 1,00,000/- imposed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad, and had also ordered stay against recovery thereof. After expiry of 180 days from the date of stay order, applicant filed an application for early hearing of the said appeal and/or for extension of the stay order, which application was listed for hearing on 8-11-2004. It is further stated that after hearing both sides on 8-11-2004, an order exte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... raised the following contentions before us : (a) That in terms of Rule 41 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, the Tribunal has powers to make such orders or give such directions as may be necessary or expedient to prevent abuse of its process or to secure ends of justice. Applicant has placed reliance on the decisions of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Anjali Cooler Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI, 1997 (94) E.L.T. 40, wherein the High Court has by relying upon the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Gajra Bevel Gears Ltd. v. UOI [1995 (80) E.L.T. 505 (M.P.)] and that, Allahabad High Court in the case of Arvi Components Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI, 1997 (90) E.L.T. 299, held that reso....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Collector of Customs, Madras v. Madras Electro Castings Pvt. Ltd., 1994 (71) E.L.T. 646, held in the context of Rule 41 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 held that the expression : "secure the ends of justice" in Rule 41, wide enough to clothe the Tri-bunal with powers to pass such interim orders, as it may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. In addition to this, the power of Appellate Tribunal to confirm, modify or annula the decision or order appealed against also takes in its fold to pass such interim orders as are necessary in order to aid the main relief sought for in the appeal. To put it in other words, the interim relief is granted to pre-serve in status quo the rights of the parties (see Kihoto Hollohan). In....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aigad. The ld. D.R. later on informed us that he has contacted and spoken to the Commissioner, who has stated - "Since the appellant could not produce orders regarding the stay extension by the Tribunal, the Deputy Commissioner appropriated the amount against the pending rebate amount. He further stated that the amount has already been adjusted in the Government account, no further coercive action is needed." 8.We have considered the submissions made by both sides and agree with the contentions of applicant that the action recovering disputed amount during the pendency of applications for extension of stay in the facts of this case are clearly an abuse of Tribunal's process. The effect of such an action is to render the stay application/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s subordinates. His silence by no such submission/assurance, induces us to conclude that the Commissioner is reluctant, at the least, to invoke his supervisory powers & jurisdiction & pursue the duty to redress the wrongs, errors of his subordinates in discharge of their executive/administrative functions, leaving no option to the Bench to step in and exercise the mandate under Rule 40 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules to take over and exercise control over the departmental authority in relation to the matter of effecting the stay ordered on recovery by this Tribunal. 8.We agree with Mr. Jain's submission that Rule 41 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 would clearly cover a case, of the present type, where the department takes impermissible....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he entire application and the proceedings and the standing of the CESTAT infructuous. Such an action therefore would certainly be an abuse of this Tribunal's process. Undoing, such wrongs with a view to prevent abuse of its process are an inherent process of this Tribunal. If such a view is not possible, then CESTAT would become a mute spectator to patently high handed, unjust, illegal and unconstitutional action on the part of the Respondents. It is settled law that a petitioner in appeal or otherwise cannot suffer, because of the absence of an action on the part of the Court [Rajkumar Dey and Others v. Parapada Dey - 1987 (4) SCC 398]. This principle was applied by the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of IPCL v. CCE - 2004 (169) ....