Meghna Exports vs Cegat

This Writ Petition has been filed by two petitioners contesting two sets of orders passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal. In the case of the first petitioner, the Collector of Customs levied a penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs on the first petitioner and a penalty of Rs. 2.5 lakhs on each of two partners. Likewise, in the case of the second petitioner also a like amount of Rs. 10 lakhs was levied as penalty against the second petitioner and a further penalty of Rs. 2.5 lakhs on each of its two partners.

These orders were appealed against in the CEGAT. Initially an order was passed on 28-5-1993 so far as the first petitioner was concerned to pre-deposit Rs. 2.5 lakhs towards penalty amount and its partners were directed to pre-deposit Rs. 25,000 each towards penalty. Likewise, in the case of the second petitioner there was a similar direction to pre-deposit Rs. 2.5 lakhs towards penalty on the second petitioner and the two partners were directed to pre-deposit Rs. 25,000 each towards penalty.

The petitioners then moved the CEGAT again for modification of the aforesaid orders by pointing out that there was in each of the case of the petitioners a pre-deposit of Rs. 2.29 lakhs and odd deposited with the Collector of Customs, but the goods in spite of the said deposit had not been got released and they still remain with the department. The petitioners pointed out that the said amount of Rs. 2.29 lakhs and odd in each case may be adjusted towards the amounts payable as per the earlier order of CEGAT towards penalties. By its second order dated 23-8-1993 the Tribunal refused to modify the earlier order. Elaborate arguments were advanced before the Tribunal for the petitioners stating that an amount of duty which the parties had pre- deposited could be directed to be adjusted towards the pre-deposit before the Tribunal. The said contention was, however, rejected. While the Tribunal rejected the submissions of the petitioners, it has not, however, specifically stated that in each of these cases it had considered necessary for each of the petitioners to deposit Rs. 2.5 lakhs plus Rs. 2.29 lakhs towards penalty.

Be that as it may, it will not be necessary for us to discuss the correctness of order of the Tribunal for the following reasons. If as contended for by the petitioners, they are willing to give an undertaking that they will not remove the goods and the goods continue to remain with the department, the petitioners will be entitled to a refund of Rs. 2.29 lakhs and odd each in both the cases. If that be so, all that is technically required is for the petitioner to file such an undertaking, get the refund and again redeposit the same in the Tribunal. If the petitioners are entitled to file and undertaking not to remove the goods and consequently to the refund of the amount of Rs. 2.29 lakhs and odd in each of these cases, we think it would be an empty formality for asking the petitioners to go through this exercise and take this amount by way of refund and re-deposit the same in the Tribunal.

While we do not hold that there is any right in the petitioners to seek an adjustment of the pre-deposit, we feel that in the interest of justice the following order should be passed as an order of Court :-

The amount lying in deposit in each of these cases with the Collector of Customs will be treated, by order of this Court, as part of the amount liable to be deposited under the orders of the Tribunal and so deposited. The petitioners shall, however, deposit the balance amount as required by the orders of the Tribunal after deducting in each of the cases the amount lying with the Collector of Customs. The appeal shall be heard on merits by the Tribunal and disposed of in accordance with law. In respect of the deposit of the balance amount as mentioned above, the petitioners will have one month time from today.

Before parting with this Writ Petition, we must observe as follows. In some cases, it has been brought to the notice of this Court that the Tribunal is releasing the operative part of its order initially and is keeping back its reasons and thereafter releasing its reasoned order after considering time. On certain occasions, the reasoned order is being released after the time for compliance with the directions contained in the operative part of the order has expired. This is causing considerable inconvenience to the parties as well as to the Revenue where the parties desire to file a Writ Petition.

The Supreme Court had occasion to deal with this question earlier when some High Courts were passing orders in regard to the operative portion and were releasing the reasoned orders subsequently. The Supreme Court deprecated such a practice. When the above said directive of the Supreme Court is applicable to the High Courts, it follows a fortiori that even the Tribunals are bound by such a declaration and direction of the Supreme Court. We would, Therefore, appreciate if in future, the Tribunal furnishes its entire order as soon as it is ready, rather than pass two orders - one containing the operative portion and the other containing reasons.

The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.