IN THE CEGAT., EAST REGIONAL BENCH, CALCUTTA SURESH PRASAD GUPTA Vs. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE), PATNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRI K. Chatterjee, 1. learned Advocate submits that the subject Miscellaneous Application has been posted for hearing on 31st May, 1995. He submits that on that day he will be out of Calcutta in connection with some professional work in an excise matter. He, therefore, prays for preponing the hearing of the subject Miscellaneous Application and passing a suitable direction inasmuch as Tribunals Order No. A -722 -733/Cal/93 dated 14 -10 -1993 has not been implemented. He submits that thereafter a letter dated 1st/2nd February, 1994 from Assistant Collector (Appeal Cell) of Collectorate of Customs (Preventive), Patna has been received by the Applicant which informs that Collector of Customs (Preventive), Patna has been pleased to accept the above CEGAT Order and necessary direction has also been given to Assistant Collector of Customs (Preventive), Muzaffarpur. The Applicants have, therefore, been asked to approach the said Assistant Collector for consequential relief granted by CEGAT in the above referred Order. He submits that despite this letter and despite the refund voucher having been submitted by the Applicants implementation of Tribunals aforesaid order dated 4 -10 -1993 has not been effected so far. Learned Consultant Shri K. Chatterjee further submits that eight reminders have been given to both the Assistant Collector and Collector of Customs (Preventive), Patna but to no avail. In these circumstances, he has been forced to file the present Miscellaneous Petition to seek justice from the Tribunal.

(2.) SHRI D.K. Saha, learned SDR for the Revenue submits that he has no information as to why the Collector and the Assistant Collector, Muzaffarpur have not implemented Tribunals order so far. In the normal course, it should have been implemented. In this connection, the learned Consultant relied on the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Kamalakshmi Finance Corporation Limited reported in 1991 (55) E.L.T. 433 (S.C.). He submits that the Apex Court in the aforesaid case has observed that all subordinate authorities should give full regard to the judgments of the Tribunal and these are binding on them. The effect of the Tribunals Orders should be implemented forthwith unless a proper stay has been granted by the appropriate authorities. He, therefore, submits that suitable direction may be given to the Collector of Customs (Preventive), Patna (Shri B.K. Misra) and the Assistant Collector, Muzaffarpur to implement the Tribunals Order No. A -722 -723/Cal/93, dated 14 -10 -1993.

(3.) I have carefully considered the pleas advanced from both sides. I find lot of force in the pleas made by the learned Consultant for the Applicant after the Assistant Collector (Appeal Section)s letter dated 1st/2nd February, 1995. Within a few months thereafter, the order of the Tribunal should have been implemented by now and normally there should not have been any need of filing the present Application by the Applicant. I, therefore, direct the Collector of Customs (Preventive), Patna (Shri B.K. Misra) and the Assistant Collector, Muzaffarpur to implement the Tribunals Order No. A -722/723/Cal/93 dated 14 -10 -1993 forthwith, within 15 days of receipt of this order. Matter to come up for ascertaining the compliance on 4th of July, 1995.