JAYANTA GLASS LTD. Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PURSUANT to the direction issued in our Order dated 26.3.2004 Shri R.K. Pandey, Commissioner, Central Excise Kolkata -III Commissionerate is present in this Court. He has field an affidavit making an effort to explain the delay to implement the order passed by this Tribunal. From the affidavit, it is seen that the Department has filed a SLP before the Supreme Court of India against the order No. 92/2003 -NB(A) dated 1.5.2003. It is not submitted before us that an order of stay of implementation of the Tribunal's Order dated 1.5.2003 has been obtained from the Supreme Court. In these circumstances, the Commissioner was bound to implement the order. Reference is made to the Board's letter F. No. 383/22/03 -JC dt. 31.10.2003 to contend that interest was not paid in view of that fact issue has been taken up before the Supreme Court by the Department. On going through the Board's letter dated 31.10.2003, we do not find any direction to subordinate officers not to implement the order passed by the Tribunal directing payment of interest. On the other hand, the Board had issued a comprehensive communication dated 23rd September 2003 addressed to all Chief Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs directing them to ensure that Departmental Officers serving in their jurisdiction should strictly adhere to judicial discipline in regard to ruling/direction of the appellate authority at whatever judicial systems - orders, are issued. In his affidavit, the Commissioner has not referred to the above communication of the Board.

(2.) SINCE the balance amount of interest has been paid under cheque dated 16.4.2004 and thus our order dated 13th Feb. has been complied with we do not propose to proceed with this proceeding any further. In future the Commissioner will take all necessary steps to comply with the direction contained in the order passed by the Tribunal within time stipulated therein. We make it clear that any repetition of lapse as in the present case will be taken serious note of. On many occasions we have noticed that noncompliance of orders in time has resulted in payment of large amounts as interest to parties. Such amounts are paid from public funds without fixing any responsibility on officers. With these observations the petitions stand closed.