S.S. Clearing and Forwarding Vs. the Commissioner of Customs

S.S. Clearing and Forwarding vs The Commissioner of Customs

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Mar 02, 2006

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/42023

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/42023
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: A Wadhwa, S T S.S.
Decided On: Mar 02, 2006
Subject: Service Tax

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Service Tax

Key legal issue: Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

S.S. Clearing and Forwarding

Respondent

The Commissioner of Customs

Excerpt

.....ld. dr submits that the matter before the hon'ble high court stands adjourned.however, it was conceded on the part of the revenue that the tribunal's order has not been stayed. on the other hand, the appellants have strongly contended that in the absence of any stay order of the tribunal, revenue is bound to implement the same, inasmuch as mere filing of reference application before the hon'ble high court does not, ipsofacto, act as a stay of operation of the same. ld. advocate submits that it is a question of livelihood of the applicants as also his employees and in the absence of restoration of his cha licence, the applicant has suffered a lot. strong reliance has been placed upon the tribunal's order in the case of jupiter exports and ors. v.commissioner of customs (general), mumbai, reported in 2001 (47) rlt 860 (cegat-mumbai), wherein the commissioner was directed to grant refund consequential to the cegat order. even though the application under section 130(a) of the customs act 1962 was filed by the commissioner in the high court.4. after giving our careful consideration to the submissions made by both sides, we fully agree with the ld. advocate. the said order of the tribunal was passed in the month of august 2005 and even though, a considerable period has lapsed thereafter, the commissioner has not implemented the same. it is well settled law that a mere filing of reference application cannot operate as a stay of operation of the tribunal order. as such, revenue is duty bound to implement the tribunal's order. we, accordingly, direct the commissioner to restore the applicant's licence immediately on receipt of this order and report compliance on 30/03/2006.5. the said order to be given dasti to both sides, so as to enable the revenue to act on the same immediately.

Full Judgment

1. The prayer in the miscellaneous application is for implementation of Tribunal's order No. A/134/WZB/05/C-I (CSTB) dated 23/08/2005, vide which the impugned order of the Commissioner ordering for cancel of the applicant's CHA licence was set aside. The applicant's contention is that though a period of around six months has passed, his licence has not been restored by the revenue.

2. The matter came up on board a number of occasions when the revenue was directed to get a report from the Commissioner as regards implementation of the said order. Ld. SDR Shri P.K. Katiyar, appearing for the revenue on 24/02/2006 informed the Bench that against the said order of the Tribunal, reference application has been filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay. However, he fairly agrees that the said order of the Tribunal has not been stayed. Accordingly, time was given to the revenue to either procure the stay order or to implement the Tribunal's order immediately after expiry of one week.

3. When the matter came up today for ascertaining compliance, Ld. DR submits that the matter before the Hon'ble High Court stands adjourned.

However, it was conceded on the part of the revenue that the Tribunal's order has not been stayed. On the other hand, the appellants have strongly contended that in the absence of any stay order of the Tribunal, revenue is bound to implement the same, inasmuch as mere filing of reference application before the Hon'ble High Court does not, ipsofacto, act as a stay of operation of the same. Ld. Advocate submits that it is a question of livelihood of the applicants as also his employees and in the absence of restoration of his CHA licence, the applicant has suffered a lot. Strong reliance has been placed upon the Tribunal's order in the case of Jupiter Exports and Ors. v.Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai, reported in 2001 (47) RLT 860 (CEGAT-Mumbai), wherein the Commissioner was directed to grant refund consequential to the CEGAT order. Even though the application under Section 130(A) of the Customs Act 1962 was filed by the Commissioner in the High Court.

4. After giving our careful consideration to the submissions made by both sides, we fully agree with the Ld. Advocate. The said order of the Tribunal was passed in the month of August 2005 and even though, a considerable period has lapsed thereafter, the Commissioner has not implemented the same. It is well settled law that a mere filing of reference application cannot operate as a stay of operation of the Tribunal order. As such, revenue is duty bound to implement the Tribunal's order. We, accordingly, direct the Commissioner to restore the applicant's licence immediately on receipt of this order and report compliance on 30/03/2006.

5. The said order to be given Dasti to both sides, so as to enable the revenue to act on the same immediately.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties S.S. Clearing and Forwarding vs The Commissioner of Customs Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge A Wadhwa, S T S.S.