Y.R. Meena, J. - (1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Counsel for the petitioner submits that directions dated 7-1-1997 of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal has not been complied with by the Commissioner of Customs and therefore, the Commissioner should be directed to comply with the directions of the Tribunal dated 7-1-1997. The short controversy before the Tribunal was that whether the machinery in question was old and new and what is the correct value of the machines in question. The assessee preferred appeal before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal and vide order dated 7-1-1997 the Tribunal has directed the Commissioner of Customs to make suitable arrangements for examining the machines by the independent institution and the petitioner should also be allowed to cross-examine the concerned person of M/s. Metropolitan Surgical Works who obtained the budgetary quotation from T.B. In compliance with these directions one Shri Sanat Kumar Mukherjee, an expert was appointed who examined the machinery and submitted a report.
(2.) I perused the report. He has not given conclusion in respect of the value of the machine nor any specific finding has been given whether the machinery are old or new nor Shri S. Paul of M/s. Metropolitan Surgical Works who obtained the budgetary quotations has been examined.
(3.) Considering the submissions I have found the force in the case of the petitioner but at the same time the proper course is not to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The directions are given by the Tribunal. Therefore, the petitioner should first approach to the Tribunal and put forth his case for compliance with the directions of the Tribunal in the order dated 7-1-1997. If the department has any difficulty in complying with the directions they are also at liberty to put forth their difficulties before the Tribunal in case the petitioner approaches the Tribunal.;