2010 (8) TMI 335 - HC - Customs

Strictures against CESTAT order not deciding any issue - Tribunal has not decided anything else merely recorded inconsistent submissions and statements. - this judgment and order is a product of absolute non-application of mind though the aforesaid points - This order cannot be allowed to remain. Hence the same is set aside. - Matter remanded for de novo decision.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the appeal can be entertained and disposed of by the Commissioner (Appeals) beyond the prescribed period of limitation?
2. Whether fresh materials or fresh facts can be entertained in the application for review?

Analysis:
1. The appeal before the High Court challenged the judgment and order of the Tribunal regarding the disposal of 22 appeals. The substantial questions of law raised included the justification of rejecting the appellant's contention on the limitation period for disposal by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the legality of entertaining fresh materials for review. The Court noted that the Tribunal had not decided on crucial points raised, such as the permissibility of the review under the law and its compliance with Section 129(D) of the Customs Act, 1962.

2. The High Court found that the Tribunal's judgment lacked a proper decision-making process and demonstrated a lack of application of mind. It set aside the order, remanding the matter for fresh hearing by a different bench of the Tribunal. The Court emphasized the need to first decide on the point of limitation before addressing other issues. An interim order was issued, restraining the respondents from taking further steps based on the show-cause notice for a specific period, with the option for the appellant to apply for an extension of the interim order.

3. Due to the legal inadequacies in the Tribunal's decision, the High Court ordered a de novo hearing, highlighting the importance of addressing the legality, propriety, and limitation aspects of the show-cause notice. The judgment clarified that no other decisions were made regarding the limitation issue. The Court directed the expedited re-hearing of the appeal within two months and instructed the provision of a certified copy of the order to the parties upon request and compliance with formalities.