9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Challenge to extension of time granted u/s 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 by the CESTAT.
The High Court disapproved of the practice of impleading a judicial/quasi-judicial Tribunal/Authority as a Respondent in a case challenging its orders, unless specific mala fides are alleged against a member of such Tribunal/Authority. The Registry was directed not to register any Petition with such impleadment. The Writ Petition challenged the extension of time granted u/s 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal noted the Petitioner's lack of cooperation in the investigation despite multiple opportunities, leading to the extension. The Petitioner argued that the six-month period was expiring soon and no adjournment was granted beyond a certain date, risking the proceedings becoming non est. The Petitioner relied on a decision emphasizing the importance of a well-informed decision on granting extensions beyond six months. The decision highlighted the need for issuing a notice to the concerned party to show cause against the proposed extension. Although a notice was issued in the present case, the Petitioner contended that adequate time for response was not given. The judgment acknowledged the possibility of a post-decisional hearing for a party not heard initially. Consequently, the Petitioner requested a post-decisional hearing. The Writ Petition was disposed of with a direction to the Commissioner of Customs to grant a post-decisional hearing to the Petitioner on the matter of time extension u/s 110(2) on a specified date. The Commissioner was instructed to pass a reasoned order following the post-decisional hearing. The Writ Petition was thus disposed of, and a copy of the Order was directed to be given to the counsel for the parties.
|
