JUDGMENT :

1. This Writ Petition had been filed assailing the order dated 19-1-2015 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata (for short, CESTAT) (Annexure-6) rejecting the application seeking implementation of Order of the CEGAT dated 26-7-1993 in Appeal No. G-3/93.

2. The petitioner in this case seeks implementation of the following order :-

"It is thus clear from the above observation of their Lordships that the plaintiff Kamala Rani Ray is not bound by the observations of the Subordinate Judge that these are not primary gold. Since that direction was not considered by the Hon'ble High Court. This case is to be decided on the basis of evidence available which we had already discussed above. It clearly shows that they are gold ornaments. In this view of the matter, the Appeal filed by Kamala Rani Ray (G-3/93) is hereby allowed and it is hereby ordered that the 34 pieces of gold ornaments shall be returned forthwith. The appeal filed by the Department (G-7/93) is hereby dismissed."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after pronouncement of the impugned order by the learned Tribunal (CEGAT), the Collector of Central Excise, Bhubaneswar (hereinafter referred to as `the Department') filed reference application with a prayer to refer the matter to this Court under Section 82B(3) of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 (for short, `the Act') and also prayed for stay operation of the order. The said application was rejected vide order dated 30-5-1984 holding as under :-

"14. Accordingly, this Reference Application is rejected. The Stay Petition also stands rejected. The Cross Objection filed by the respondent which is only in the nature of parawise comments also stands disposed of in the light of the above-said order."

4. He further submitted that this Court while entertaining Collector v. Kamala Rani Ray, S.J.C. No. 6 of 1995 [2016 (331) E.L.T. 530 (Ori.) against the impugned order has not passed any order directing stay of operation of the order passed by CEGAT. Thus, he prayed for release of the seized gold ornaments to the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for the Department, on the other hand, submitted that after passing of the impugned order in the year 1993, the Tribunal becomes functus officio and has no jurisdiction under Rule 41 of the CESTAT Appellate Tribunal Procedure Rules, 1982 to direct for implementation of the order dated 26-7-1997 after 21 years. Moreover, no inherent power is vested with the Tribunal to issue such a direction. He submitted that since a reference application is pending before this Court it would be riot appropriate to pass any order at this stage. Considering the submissions made learned Tribunal dismissed the said application which is under challenge in this Writ Petition.

6. In view of the order passed today in S.J.C. No. 6 of 1995, the ground on which the application for implementation of the order dated 26-7-1993 was rejected does not survive. Hence, there can be no alternative before this Court than to direct for release of the seized gold ornaments to the petitioner after observing necessary formalities within a period of three months from the date of this order.

7. The Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

Final Result : Allowed