9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (8) TMI 633 - HC - Central ExciseValidity of order of the tribunal - The matter was heard by the Member (Judicial) of the Tribunal, however, the decision has been delivered by the Member (Technical) of the Tribunal, who had never dealt with the case in past. - Clandestine removal - Recovery of note book - invoice with new serial number inserted - Held that - when the appeal was already heard and reserved for orders and the Member (Judicial) of the Tribunal had directed the registry for re-listing the matter for the certain clarification, the registry ought to have re-listed the matter before the Member (Judicial) of the Tribunal and not before the Member (Technical) of the Tribunal. The Member(Technical) of the Tribunal ought not to have proceeded with the matter in absence of the petitioner and ought not to have decided the same, which is, in our opinion, contrary to the decisions of the Hon ble Apex Court in case of Automotive Manufacturers Association V. Designated Authority and Ors. reported in 2011 (1) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA and in the case of Union of India & Ors. V. Shiv Raj & Ors. reported in 2014 (5) TMI 1036 - Supreme Court Of India . The Member (Judicial) of the Tribunal was the best person to decide the matter only after getting some clarification, which he intended to get from the either party as he had put remarks on 25.10.2013. - order impugned in the petition is required to be quashed and set aside - matter remanded back. It is hereby made clarified that the matter shall be heard and decided only by one person either by the Member (Judicial) of the Tribunal or by Member (Technical) of the Tribunal in accordance with law.
Issues:
Challenge to order of Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal under Articles 14, 19, 226, 265, and 300-A of the Constitution of India - Decision delivered by a different member than the one who heard the case - Allegations of lack of notice and absence during hearing - Request for exercise of extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Analysis: The petitioner challenged an order passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, in which the appeal by the revenue was allowed. The petitioner contended that the decision was made in their absence and by a different member of the Tribunal than the one who initially heard the case. The petitioner invoked Articles 14, 19, 226, 265, and 300-A of the Constitution of India, seeking relief under Article 226. The petitioner argued that the decision was rendered by a Member (Technical) of the Tribunal, despite being heard by a Member (Judicial), and without their presence during the final decision. The case involved a private limited company engaged in the manufacture of certain products under the Central Excise Tariff Act. The dispute arose when officers found suspicious goods during road patrolling, leading to a show cause notice being issued. The proceedings were initially dropped but were later challenged by the revenue, resulting in the appeal before the Tribunal. The petitioner raised concerns about the decision-making process, specifically the change in the member deciding the case and the lack of their presence during the final decision. The High Court examined the contentions raised by both parties. The respondent argued that notice of a fresh hearing was issued, which the petitioner received through a representative. The Court noted that the first contention of lack of notice was baseless as the notice was served, even if the petitioner claimed unawareness. However, the Court found merit in the second contention regarding the change in the member deciding the case, emphasizing the importance of consistency in decision-makers and citing relevant legal precedents. Ultimately, the High Court quashed and set aside the impugned order, remanding the matter back to the Tribunal for a fresh hearing. The Court directed that the case should be heard and decided by either the Member (Judicial) or Member (Technical) of the Tribunal, emphasizing adherence to legal procedures. The ruling made the rule absolute to the extent specified, with no order as to costs and permitting direct service.
|
