TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 701X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... liabilities that the Revenue will have to discharge ultimately if its challenge before the higher appellate forum does not succeed. Ld. Departmental Representative submits that they be given another chance to move the Hon’ble High Court for expeditious hearing of the stay petition as soon as the Hon’ble High Court reopens after Diwali vacation, though we are not convinced with such an argument in the absence of inactivity from January 2014. However, in the interest of justice, respecting the word of the Id. Departmental Representative, we adjourn these applications to 28.11.2016 to give revenue an opportunity, to either get a stay order from Hon’ble High Court or implement our orders by sanctioning the refund to applicants herein. Ld. De ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uant to the final order of the Tribunal the claim was revised; few procedural objections were raised by the refund section which were complied. But the refund claims were not sanctioned It is the claim of the Ids counsel appearing for applicants that despite three years having passed on pronouncement of the order by the Tribunal and there being no stay granted by the Hon ble High Court, the amounts for which refund claims have been filed have not been sanctioned and they are eligible for such refund. It is his submission that several letters and reminders are sent to refund sanctioning authority which remains unheeded and under these circumstances these applications are filed for implementation of the Tribunal's order as per the directi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the order were filed by the applicant, after repeated reminders being filed with the Revenue authorities, and the said applications were getting listed again and again, as noted above, the Revenue filed a Notice of Motion in August 2016 and has been seeking adjournments before this Tribunal on the ground that the said Notice of Motion is pending consideration before the High Court. Had this Notice of Motion been filed two years ago, we would have given due consideration to the Revenue's prayer. But considering the callous manner in which the entire matter has been handled by the Revenue, we cannot allow the Revenue to hide behind the Notice of Motion which has been filed belatedly and on which the Revenue is not taking any steps to ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee for the delay in granting refund of pre-deposits beyond 3 months from the date of the Tribunal s order. Such orders granting payment of interest were in fact challenged by the Revenue before the High Courts but in view of the observations of the Supreme Court in an order dated 21-09.2014, all such challenged were withdrawn by the Revenue and orders of the Tribunal granting interest were implemented. As the Revenue had to incur interest liability for the delay, the Board observed as under: 5. Delay beyond this period of three months in such cases will be viewed adversely and appropriate disciplinary action will be initiated against the concerned defaulting officers, All concerned are requested to note that default will entail an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no refund/rebate claim should be withheld on the ground that an appeal has been filed against the order giving the relief, unless stay order has been obtained. It would be the responsibility of the concerned Commissioner to obtain stay order expeditiously where the orders passed by Commissioner (Appeals) or CEGAT suffer from serious infirmities and it involves grant of heavy refunds; (c) no refund or rebate claim should be withheld on the ground of augmentation of revenue in order to achieve the targets. (emphasis supplied) 9. A subsequent Board Circular No.670/61/2002-CX dated 01.10.2002 reiterated the above referred Circular dated 02.06.1998 and gave further directions to the field formations. A common thread which emerge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otice of Motion in the month of August 2016 cannot explain or undo the delay for more than 2 years in sanction of refund or obtaining a stay order. If the Revenue was really serious in pursuing its prayer for stay it ought to have pressed for that prayer at the time of admission or in the alternative ought to have filed a Notice of Motion immediately thereafter. The responsibility of obtaining a stay expeditiously, as per the Board Circular lies with the Revenue and it will not be fair to blame anybody else for this delay. 12. Once the Revenue loses its right to retain sums which are not due to it, as per an order of any appellate forum, be it the Commissioner (Appeals), Tribunal or the High Court, it has to become vigilant in either ref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
