ORDER
Harish Chander, President
1. The matter was called. Shri D.N. Mehta, the learned Advocate has appeared on behalf of the appellants and Shri M.K. Jain, the learned SDR for the respondent. The learned Advocate stated that the order passed by the Tribunal has been complied with by the Collector. Shri M.K. Jain, the learned SDR accepts the same. The Tribunal has passed the order on 18-12-1991 and the consequential effect has been given almost after two years. We had enquired from Shri. D.N. Mehta, the learned Advocate, when the consequential effect was given, he stated that he did not remember the date but it was about a month back.
2. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Paras Laminates (P) Ltd., reported in 1990 (49) E.L.T. 322 (S.C.) has held as under :-
“8. There is no doubt that the Tribunal functions as a court within the limits of its jurisdiction. It has all the powers conferred expressly by the statute. Furthermore, being a judicial body, it has all those incidental and ancillary powers which are necessary to make fully effective the express grant of statutory powers. Certain powers are recognised as incidental and ancillary, not because they are inherent in the Tribunal, nor because its jurisdiction is plenary, but because it is the legislative intent that the power which is expressly granted in the assigned field of jurisdiction is efficaciously and meaningfully exercised. The powers of the Tribunal are no doubt limited. Its area of jurisdiction is clearly defined, but within the bounds of its jurisdiction, it has all the powers expressly and impliedly granted. The implied grant is, of course, limited by the express grant and, therefore, it can only be such powers as are truly incidental and ancillary for doing all such acts or employing all such means as are reasonably necessary to make the grant effective. As stated in Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes, (eleventh-edition) “where an Act confers a jurisdiction, it impliedly also grants the power of doing all such acts, or employing such means, as are essentially necessary to its execution.”
3. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd., reported in 1991 (55) E.L.T. 433 (S.C.) has held as under : –
x x x x x
4. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Nemichand Bhikam-chand Jain v. Collector of Customs (P), reported in 1989 (41) E.L.T. 12 (Bom.) has held as under :-
x x x x x
5. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Samrat Shipping Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Additional Collector of Customs, Bombay and Anr., reported in 1990 (30) ECR 484 (Bombay) has held as under :-
x x x x x
6. The Revenue authorities take the orders passed by the Tribunal in a too casual manner. Whenever any order is passed by a superior court, lower authorities are duty bound to obey the orders passed by the superior court. We shall appreciate that in future Revenue authorities are prompt enough to give consequential effect to the orders passed by the Tribunal in accordance with law. Let a copy of this order be supplied to both the sides, the Revenue Secretary (Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Govt of India) and also to Chairman, Central Board of Excise & Customs.