CESTAT ordering that remand proceedings should be completed within three months - can such orders be really implemented?
WE received this mail from a netizen –
“On an appeal made by us before the CESTAT against the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, the matter was remanded with a direction to the adjudicating authority to pass an order within three months of receipt of the order. The Tribunal also asked us to co-operate in the remand proceedings. This was because the matter was being remanded for the third time and the case pertained to the year 1990.
We enclosed a copy of the CESTAT order and requested the adjudicating authority to grant us a personal hearing in the matter. However, to our surprise the authorities concerned informed us (verbally) that since the department was contemplating filing an appeal before the High Court and they had ample time to do so (6 months) u/s 35G of the CEA, 1944, the CESTAT directions could wait for the time being.
It is our view that since the law allows the department to pursue legal remedies against the order of the CESTAT such orders of the appellate Tribunal carry only perfunctory value. The department view also appears to be fair but for the reason that they ought to get a Stay of the order of the CESTAT before the expiry of the appeal period.
Admittedly, CESTAT has passed these directions in exercise of the powers contained in rule 41 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 but it does not have the power to initiate contempt proceedings without referring the matter to the High Court.
The Tribunal once observed –
“When sanctity is attached to established Courts and Tribunals it follows as a corollary that all orders emanating from these Public Institutions should be respected and strictly complied with. The order must be implicitly observed, every diligence must be exercised to obey. The welfare of the people is the supreme law. The welfare of the people can be attained only when there is justice administered lawfully, judicially without fear or favour and those that are responsible for the administration of such justice, and those seek justice as parties and those who help in the administration of justice have to be protected from insults, annoyance or even obstructions. Administration of justice cannot be effective unless respect for it is fostered and maintained. Interference with it shakes the very pillar of the administration of justice and the confidence of the people in courts, which is of a prime importance to the litigants in their struggle for the protection of their rights and liberties. No Tribunal can function properly unless it is allowed to keep up its dignity, and unless it has power to enforce discipline and respect in its administration of justice. The object of discipline enforced by Tribunals is not to vindicate the dignity of the Tribunals but to prevent undue interference with the administration of justice.”
In view of the above, our question is – Whether CESTAT should pass such “remand” orders which carry a ‘mandatory' period of disposal in the first place?”