2015 (8) TMI 939 - HC - Customs

Afresh Consideration of Matter Revenue praying that previous orders be set aside and Appeal against order of commissioner be re-heard and in accordance with law whereby he confirmed re-determined value, confiscated rough diamonds absolutely and imposed penalties upon respondent Held that - Appeal to be restored to file of CESTAT for being decided afresh in accordance with law and after giving opportunity of being heard in person to all parties thereto Tribunal to administer caution while adjudicating matter Petition disposed off Decided in favour of Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India sought by Revenue to set aside orders and re-hear appeal by CESTAT.
2. Adjudication process leading to challenges and appeals by importers before CESTAT.
3. Difference of opinion between Members of CESTAT leading to referral to a third member and subsequent rectification applications.
4. Withdrawal of Civil Appeal in Supreme Court and assignment of matter to a different CESTAT Member for re-hearing.
5. Request for re-hearing appeals to resolve confusion and chaos, in line with previous court orders.
6. Disposal of appeals by setting aside initial CESTAT order and directing re-hearing with fresh set of Members.

Analysis:

1. The judgment pertains to a situation where the Revenue approached the Bombay High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to set aside orders and re-hear an appeal by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The Court noted the unusual circumstances prompting this request.

2. The case originated from show cause notices adjudicated by the Commissioner of Customs, leading to an order confirming re-determined value, confiscation of rough diamonds, and imposition of penalties. Importers, aggrieved by this order, filed appeals before CESTAT, which remanded the case back to the Adjudicating Authority due to procedural irregularities.

3. Subsequent challenges and appeals by importers before CESTAT resulted in a difference of opinion between Members, leading to referral to a third member and filing of rectification applications. The prolonged pendency of these applications raised concerns.

4. Following the withdrawal of a Civil Appeal in the Supreme Court and the retirement of a CESTAT Member, the matter was assigned to a different Member for re-hearing, emphasizing the need to resolve confusion and chaos by re-hearing the appeals with a fresh set of Members.

5. The Court, considering the consent of both parties, set aside the initial CESTAT order and directed re-hearing of the appeals in accordance with the law. Emphasis was placed on expeditious disposal of long-pending cases and avoidance of unnecessary disagreements and dissents among Members.

6. The judgment highlighted the importance of resolving cases in accordance with the law, avoiding unnecessary differences of opinion, and ensuring efficient disposal of appeals. The Court expressed hope that similar situations requiring intervention would be minimized in the future, emphasizing the need for meaningful discussions and continuous dialogue to prevent delays and confusion in the adjudication process.