Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2016 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (11) TMI 1266 - AT - CustomsRectification of mistake - stay of recovery - the Bench, while granting the interim prayer of the appellant, appeared to have been guided by the decision of the Principal Bench in Hem Chand Gupta & Sons Versus Commissioner of Cus. (ICD) , New Delhi [2015 (1) TMI 1266 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] instead of following the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in Sunil Gupta v. Union o India & Ors [2014 (12) TMI 151 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] - Held that: - The applicant is in gross error in behaving that, by the amendment in section 28 of Customs Act, 1962 which pertain only to recovery of duty, the 'officer of customs' is, in every provision of the Act and Rules, a 'proper officer'. A prejudicial understanding of a judicial decision is no substitute for diligent comprehension and responsible reaction. We, therefore, find no mistake and, hence, no cause to entertain the present application before us. Before we part with the matter, we also take note of the behavior of the representative of Revenue while seeking the rectification. Both sides of the bar may consider themselves competent to form an opinion on our orders or may be dissatisfied by the 'failure' rate but that does not confer upon them the liberty to articulate, and that too in intemperate language, which, regretfully, the representative of Revenue arrogated to himself. Such lack of grace does not add to the credit of the office of the Chief Commissioner (AR) as it demonstrably reveals the failure to instill the importance of disciplined behavior and professional stoicism in the face of in favourable outcome. Our courts and tribunals are overworked owing to manifold causes and not the least of which is the apathetic abdication of responsibility by senior levels of the tax administration in the resort to litigation. Escalating the workload without justifiable cause, or even by patent ignorance, must be checked. The impulse to litigate against an order of the Tribunal that is not to its satisfaction or if the interpretation is seen as potential threat to their fief is disservice to public interest. We are not sure if the present application is motivated by ill-advice, lack of knowledge, unwillingness to accept the law, overweening desire to display juristic brilliance or merely an exercise in evading responsibility. We are certain that it demonstrates impulsive reaction without even the most rudimentary application of mind. To condone that is to abet in condoning irresponsible behavior and to encourage frivolous litigation. To that end, we impose costs of ₹ 10,000/- on the applicant-Commissioner to be paid in to the Prime Minister’s Relief Fund within 45 days of receipt of the order. Application for rectification of mistake dismissed.
|