9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to judgment of Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal regarding confiscation of gold and imposition of penalties under Customs Act, 1962. Allegations of non-application of mind, delay in judgment delivery, and lack of reasoning in the Tribunal's order. Analysis: The main challenge in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution pertains to the judgment and order passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, dismissing the petitioners' appeals and confirming the confiscation of gold and imposition of penalties under Section 111 (d) of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioners argue that the Tribunal failed to consider their written submissions and miscellaneous applications, leading to a non-speaking order lacking detailed reasoning. They emphasize the need for the Tribunal to address their submissions, provide reasons for its findings, and ensure a fair hearing process. The petitioners rely on legal precedents highlighting the importance of a reasoned judgment and timely delivery of justice. On the other hand, the Additional Standing Counsel for the Central Government contends that the Tribunal's agreement with the Commissioner of Customs' findings justifies the lack of detailed reasons in the order. It is argued that the issues raised before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) are distinct from those under the Customs Act, making the CIT (Appeals) order irrelevant to the current proceedings. The counsel stresses that the petitioners should have pursued appropriate orders on the miscellaneous applications before expecting consideration of the CIT (Appeals) order by the Tribunal. Regarding the delay in delivering the judgment, the Court refers to legal precedents emphasizing the importance of timely justice delivery to maintain litigants' confidence in the legal system. Citing the observations made in previous cases, the Court notes that unreasonable delays in judgment delivery without exceptional circumstances are undesirable and can impact the perception of justice. Considering the significant delay of 14 months in this case, coupled with the absence of reference to the petitioners' submissions in the Tribunal's order, the Court deems it sufficient grounds to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Tribunal for a fresh hearing. In conclusion, the Court allows the petition, setting aside the Tribunal's order and remanding the matter for a new hearing in accordance with the law. The Court clarifies that it has not delved into the merits of the case or the relevance of the CIT (Appeals) order, leaving those aspects to be addressed during the Tribunal's reconsideration. The ruling emphasizes the importance of a fair hearing process, reasoned judgments, and timely justice delivery in upholding the principles of justice and legal procedure.
|
