9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (9) TMI 1412 - HC - Central ExciseTime limit for pronouncement of judgments - Held that - The hearing of the appeal before the CESTAT was concluded on 29th October 2014 and the judgment was delivered on 11th May 2015. Thus there was a delay of more than six months in delivering the impugned judgement. Hence it was in breach of the CESTAT s Order No.4 of 2009. Therefore the order under challenge cannot be sustained and is set aside and quashed. Hence the appeal is allowed. The Hon ble President of the CESTAT is requested to place the matter before a Bench within a period of 15 days from the date of presentation of a copy of the xerox certified copy of this order for fresh hearing expeditiously.
Issues:
Delay in passing the order by CESTAT beyond the prescribed time limit. Analysis: The judgment in question dealt with the issue of delay in passing the order by the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) beyond the time limit prescribed in CESTAT Order No.4 of 2009. The appellant raised a substantial question of law regarding the delay of more than six months in delivering the impugned order after the conclusion of the hearing. The CESTAT Order stipulated that if no order is pronounced within six months after the conclusion of the hearing, it shall be deemed as not heard and requires fresh hearing with prior approval from the President of CESTAT. The respondent argued that despite the delay, the Tribunal had considered the submissions and passed a well-reasoned order, justifying no intervention. The Court acknowledged that the hearing concluded on 29th October, 2014, and the judgment was delivered on 11th May, 2015, indicating a delay of more than six months. This delay was found to be in violation of the CESTAT Order, leading to the order under challenge being set aside and quashed. The Court directed the matter to be placed before a Bench for fresh hearing within 15 days. Notably, the Court clarified that the decision did not delve into the merits of the case, focusing solely on the procedural issue of delay. Furthermore, the Court addressed the shortage of members in the CESTAT, Eastern Zonal Bench, which was cited as a possible cause for delays in delivering orders. In response, the Court directed the Ministry of Finance to promptly appoint members to fill the vacant positions in the Eastern Zonal Bench, Kolkata. The Registrar was instructed to send a copy of the order to the Ministry of Finance for necessary action. No costs were awarded in the matter, and the application was disposed of accordingly.
|
