SONY IMPEX Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PORT), KOLKATA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri R.K. Chaudhary, learned Advocate on the subject Miscellaneous Application filed by the applicant/appellant company for provisional release of the confiscated goods. He submits that the imported goods may be allowed to be released provisionally on the conditions as deemed fit by the Honourable Tribunal. Shri Chaudhary has, further, submitted that the case was remanded by the Tribunal with certain directions (vide Tribunals Order No. A -799/KOL/04 dated 8 -11 -2004) [2005 (183) E.L.T. 278 (Tri. - Kolkata)] to be followed by the Commissioner while adjudicating the case afresh. He draws our attention to the Final (De novo) Order passed by the Commissioner, wherein at para 20, he has observed, The Honble CESTAT does not appear to have taken cognizance of this fact. At Para 22 of his Order, the Commissioner has also observed, I find that Honble CESTAT has failed to consider the fact that it is settled position of law........ Shri Chaudhary, further, submits that it has been held by various Honourable Courts that Tribunals judgment and order are binding on all Revenue Officers and the assessee set aside by the superior Courts. He relies upon Honble Bombay High Courts judgment in the case of Sunflag Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. Additional Collector of Central Excise, Nagpur reported in 2003 (162) E.L.T. 105 (Bom.), wherein it has been held -Tribunals judgment and order are binding on all Revenue officers and assessee unless set aside by superior Courts. In view of this, he submits that the only remedy available to the Commissioner was either to adjudicate the case in pursuance of directions given in the remand order passed by the CESTAT or to go to appeal before the Higher Courts. But he had no authority to sit over the order passed by the CESTAT.

(2.) HEARD Shri Amitava Hore, learned JDR for the Revenue. He submits that the goods have been finally confiscated by the Revenue with an option to redeem the same against a Redemption Fine. There is no provision for provisional release once the Final Order has been passed by the adjudicating authority.

(3.) WE have heard both sides. We find that in this case, there was no application from the assessee for provisional release before the Revenue. The same should be produced before the Bench. As regards the Commissioners observation on the Order passed by the CESTAT, we are constrained to observe that the Commissioner does not know the provisions of law. It has been held by various Courts that the Orders of the Tribunal are binding on all Revenue Officers and the Assessee unless set aside by the superior Courts. If the Commissioner was not agreeable with the Remand Order passed by this Tribunal with certain directions, he should have gone to appeal before the Higher Courts. But he had no power to sit over on judgment upon the Tribunals decision. A copy of this Order be sent to the Chairman, C.B.E.C., New Delhi for further action as deemed fit. Case to come up for hearing on 19 -9 -2005.