M/S Azad Coach PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner Of Central Excise Jaipur -I

CW/11875/2020HC RajasthanGSTCNR RJHC02058234202021 March 2024Bench: PANKAJ BHANDARI,SHUBHA MEHTA2 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

Facts

M/s Azad Coach Pvt. Ltd. (Petitioner) filed a civil writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court, Bench at Jaipur. The Petitioner sought a direction to the respondents (Commissioner of Central Excise Jaipur-I and Superintendent, CGST Range 21) to re-quantify excise duty as per an order dated March 13, 2020, passed by the CESTAT. The Petitioner contended that this re-quantification had not been done. The respondents opposed the petition, arguing that Rule 41 of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982, empowers the CESTAT to pass orders to give effect to its own decisions.

Held

The Court held that Rule 41 of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982, clearly vests the Tribunal with the power to make such orders or give such directions as may be necessary or expedient to give effect to its orders or to prevent abuse of its process or to secure the ends of justice. Therefore, the Court found no force in the writ petition, as the Petitioner's grievance regarding the non-implementation of the CESTAT's order could be addressed by the CESTAT itself. The Court dismissed the writ petition but granted the Petitioner liberty to approach the CESTAT for appropriate directions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondents are obligated to carry out the re-quantification of excise duty pursuant to the CESTAT order dated March 13, 2020, and if so, within what timeframe? The Petitioner argued that the respondents had failed to comply with the CESTAT's order for re-quantification. The Petitioner contended that the respondents were bound to implement the CESTAT's directions. The Respondents argued that the Petitioner's remedy lay with the CESTAT itself, citing Rule 41 of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982, which grants the Tribunal power to make orders or give directions necessary to give effect to its orders or to secure the ends of justice. They implicitly argued that the High Court should not interfere when the CESTAT has the power to enforce its own orders.

Sections Cited

Rule 41

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

[2024:RJ-JP:14374-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11875/2020 M/s Azad Coach Pvt. Ltd. through its Director Razeb S. Chadha F-18, RIICO Industrial Area, Kukas, Jaipur (Raj). ----Petitioner Versus 1. Commissioner of Central Excise Jaipur-I, NCR Building, Statue Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur (Raj). 2. Office of the Superintendent, CGST Range 21, Division-E, Sector-10, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Khurana (through V.C.) For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ajay Shukla (Sr. Standing Counsel for CGST) with Mr. Raghav Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA

Order 21/03/2024

Petitioner has preferred this civil writ petition inter alia praying therein that respondents may be directed to carry out the necessary re-quantification of excise duty pursuant to the order dated 13.03.2020 passed by learned CESTAT in a time bound manner.

It is contended by counsel-Mr. Manish Khurana appearing for the petitioner through video conferencing that no re-quantification has been done in pursuance of the order dated 13.03.2020. 3. Mr. Ajay Shukla, Adv. appearing for the respondents has opposed the present writ petition. It is contended that Rule 41 of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal

[2024:RJ-JP:14374-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-11875/2020] (Procedure) Rules, 1982, empowers the CESTAT to pass orders to give effect to the orders passed by it.

We have perused the impugned order as well as the civil writ petition.

Rule 41 of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules reads as under:- Orders and directions in certain cases- "The Tribunal may make such orders or give such directions as may be necessary or expedient to give effect or in relation to its orders or to prevent abuse of its process or to secure the ends of justice."

A bare perusal of the above rule goes to show that the Tribunal is vested with the powers to give effect to the orders passed by it while exercising the appellate juri iction.

Since CESTAT is empowered to pass orders in accordance with Rule 41, we do not find any force in the present civil writ petition and the same is accordingly, dismissed.

Petitioner is at liberty to approach the CESTAT. (SHUBHA MEHTA),J (PANKAJ BHANDARI),J AMIT/40

Reproduced from the public record of the Rajasthan High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.