The order of CEGAT is binding on the subordinate authorities and they have to implement it. However, the respondents can insist for security, but a personal bond on behalf of the company for the amount that may become due to the Department in the event it succeeds in the Supreme Court would be sufficient.

K.A. SWAMI, C.J.

This appeal is preferred against the order dated 29th August, 1996 passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 8635 of 1996. In the writ petition, the petitioner sought for a direction to the respondents to implement the order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, dated 18-5-1996. The learned single Judge has disposed of the writ petition with the following direction :-

"I have considered the respective contentions of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. It is well settled by the ruling of the Supreme Court inUnion of Indiav.Kamalakshi Finance Corporation Limited that the order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench at Madras is binding on all the subordinate authorities working within its jurisdiction. Further, the principles of judicial discipline require that the orders of the highest appellate authority should be followed unreservedly by the subordinate authorities. Further, the subject matter of the appeal can furnish no grounds for not following it, unless its operation has been suspended by the competent court. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has filed a Caveat before the Supreme Court and so far no notice of stay has been received by the petitioner. In view of the above, the respondents are directed to implement the order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Madras, in Appeal No. C/V-129/96/Md. & C/V-130/96/Md. dated 18-5-1996 in accordance with law, within one week from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. It is open to the respondents to direct the petitioner to execute necessary customs surety or security bond to safeguard the interest of revenue to cover the disputed amounts, in case the contention of the revenue is accepted in appeal."

2.As against the aforesaid order, the respondents in the writ petition came up in writ Appeal No. 889 of 1996. That was disposed of at the admission stage with the following observations :-

Thus, if the appellants succeed before the Supreme Court, the respondent is liable to reimburse. Even otherwise, before the order of the Tribunal is implemented pursuant to the direction of the learned single Judge, if the appellants are able to secure the interim order from the Supreme Court, the question of implementing the order of the Tribunal does not arise. Whatever it may be, the learned single Judge has further safeguarded the interest of the appellants by enabling them to direct the writ petitioner to execute the necessary customs surety or security bond to safeguard the interest of the Revenue to cover the disputed amounts in case the contention of the appellants is accepted in appeal. That means, the Customs Department can very well insist for the solvent surety of the value sufficient to meet the amount involved in the case. It is not a mere personal bond. Unless the required surety with solvency certificate is furnished and accepted, the question of implementing the order of the Appellate Tribunal as directed by the learned single Judge does not arise.

With the above observations, the appeal is dismissed. However, the time allowed by the learned single Judge for implementing the order of the Tribunal is extended by two weeks from today.'

3.In that appeal also, the writ petitioner, who has filed Writ Appeal No. 922 of 1996, has filed an application C.M.P. 13879 of 1996 seeking for the following direction :-

"For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass appropriate orders/ directions directing the Appellants in W.A. No. 889 of 1996 and the Respondents in W.A. No. 922 of 1996 to release the goods viz. six auto coners covered by Bill of Entry No. 75, dated 8-11-1995 and Bill of Entry No. 76, dated 8-11-1995 to the Respondents in W.A. No. 889 of 1996 and the appellants in W.A. No. 922 of 1996 forthwith