2008 (11) TMI 457 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Lack of clarity in order identification, failure to issue notice for hearing, unsatisfactory explanation by Assistant Registrar, need for detailed explanation from Registry.

In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, the primary issue arose when an appeal, previously dismissed due to lack of COD clearance, was restored by the bench through an order dated 5-8-08. However, upon examination, it was found that the order despatched by the registry lacked clarity in showing the order number and date, making it difficult for identification purposes. Furthermore, no notice was issued to the litigant for the scheduled hearing on 11-11-08, raising concerns about procedural fairness and compliance.

To address the above issues, the concerned Assistant Registrar was summoned to court to provide insights. Despite being given the record to review, the Assistant Registrar was unable to confirm if public records clearly displayed the order number and date for public inspection. Additionally, the Assistant Registrar failed to justify why a notice was not issued to the concerned party when the matter was listed for the hearing. The explanation given was that since there was no specific direction from the bench to issue a notice, it was not done, highlighting a procedural gap in ensuring proper communication with the litigants.

Consequently, the Tribunal directed the Assistant Registrar to provide detailed reasons for several key aspects. These included clarifying why the order despatched was not thoroughly examined by the registry for issuing a notice, especially when it did not indicate that the parties were aware of the court proceedings. Furthermore, the Assistant Registrar was asked to explain why the order number and date were not clearly visible, causing confusion in identifying the specific order. The Tribunal also sought clarification on the standard practice for issuing notices when a matter is adjourned, especially in cases where parties had not received prior notice during the open court hearing.

Given the unsatisfactory nature of the Assistant Registrar's initial explanation, the Tribunal emphasized the need for a comprehensive and detailed explanation from the Registry itself. The Registry was instructed to provide the required clarifications on the specified issues by 14-11-08 to enable the Tribunal to make appropriate orders. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of procedural transparency and adherence to ensure fair and effective judicial proceedings, highlighting the significance of clear communication and documentation in legal processes.