2004 (2) TMI 388 - HC - Central Excise

Precedent - Distinguishing of case law - Income Tax - Deductions - Appeal to Supreme Court - Certificate - Grant of

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order dated 17th October, 2003 due to non-application of mind and non-consideration of material on record leading to unsustainable order. Allegation of inordinate delay in pronouncement of judgment affecting the right of appeal. Lack of findings on merits by CEGAT due to delayed delivery of judgment. Violation of principles of natural justice necessitating setting aside of the impugned order.

Analysis:

1. Challenge to Order:
The petition challenged the order dated 17th October, 2003, highlighting the absence of reasons in the order and alleging non-application of mind, non-consideration of material on record, and a casual manner of passing the order. The petitioner contended that such deficiencies rendered the order unsustainable in law.

2. Inordinate Delay in Pronouncement of Judgment:
The petitioner argued that the delay in delivering the judgment by CEGAT had negated the right of appeal conferred by the statute. It was emphasized that any procedure lacking in ensuring a reasonably quick adjudication was deemed unjust, as justice delayed was considered equivalent to justice denied.

3. Lack of Findings on Merits by CEGAT:
The petitioner pointed out that the impugned order by CEGAT did not contain any findings on the merits of the case, indicating a complete non-application of mind. This deficiency was attributed to the delayed delivery of judgment, which was deemed to have adversely affected the quality of the decision-making process.

4. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The Court, considering the consensus between the parties and without delving into the merits of the findings, set aside the impugned order due to its breach of principles of natural justice. The matter was remitted back to CEGAT with a directive to pass a reasoned order on merits expeditiously, within a stipulated timeframe of three months from the date of the order.

5. Conclusion:
Ultimately, the petition was allowed, and the rule was made absolute in accordance with the Court's order, with no costs imposed on either party. The parties were instructed to act upon an ordinary copy of the order duly authenticated by the Associate, emphasizing the need for adherence to principles of natural justice and timely adjudication in legal proceedings.