2010 (9) TMI 858 - HC - Central Excise

Pre-deposit - judgments cited by the petitioners were taken note of in the order dated 30th July, 2010, those were not dealt with while passing the order directing pre-deposit Held that - Since judgments were cited, those should have been considered and dealt with by the Tribunal as the petitioners have urged that they are affected by the impugned orders directing pre-deposit. It has to be kept in mind that the Tribunal being a creature of the statute has to follow the mandate laid down in the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982 in its true spirit. Moreover, the Tribunal has to ensure that justice is not only done but manifestly shown to be done - Tribunal is directed to hear the application for pre-deposit afresh and shall pass a reasoned order dealing with the judgments as mentioned therein.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging orders of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal; Failure to consider cited judgments in orders directing pre-deposit; Application for recalling and/or variation of previous order; Interpretation of Rule 41 of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982.

Analysis:
The High Court addressed the challenge against the orders of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, focusing on the failure to consider cited judgments in the orders directing pre-deposit. The petitioners contended that the Tribunal should have dealt with the judgments cited as they were applicable to the case, emphasizing that justice required consideration of all relevant aspects. The respondents argued that the cited judgments were not applicable to the case, hence not considered. This dispute highlighted the importance of addressing all relevant legal precedents in judicial decisions.

In a previous writ petition, the Court had disposed of the matter by granting liberty to the petitioner to file an application before the Tribunal regarding the non-consideration of cited judgments. Subsequently, the petitioners filed an application for recalling or varying the Tribunal's order. The Court noted that while the Tribunal referred to the cited judgments in the impugned order, it did not address them specifically. The Court emphasized the Tribunal's obligation to ensure justice, citing Rule 41 of the Tribunal's Procedure Rules, which empowers the Tribunal to make necessary orders to secure the ends of justice.

The Court held that the Tribunal's failure to consider the relevant judgments cited by the petitioners amounted to a denial of justice. Emphasizing the Tribunal's duty to follow procedural rules and uphold justice, the Court set aside the orders of the Tribunal and directed a fresh hearing on the application for pre-deposit. The judgment underscored the importance of judicial bodies adhering to procedural rules and ensuring that all relevant legal arguments are duly considered in decisions.

Therefore, the writ petition was allowed, with no order as to costs, and all parties were directed to act on a signed copy of the order as per usual undertakings. The judgment highlighted the significance of upholding principles of justice and ensuring that legal arguments are properly addressed in judicial proceedings to safeguard the rights of the parties involved.