2008 (9) TMI 70 - HC - Customs

Difference between final order and handwritten order in Order Sheet - Orders passed and signed by members of tribunal cannot be altered by such members unless statute provides for review change of order amounts to tampering with judicial records such incidents should not occur in course of conduct of CESTAT impugned order is set aside and matter is remanded

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in filing the appeal.
2. Discrepancies in the orders passed by the Tribunal.
3. Tampering with judicial records.
4. Allegations of altering the order without notice to parties.
5. Report submitted by the President of the Tribunal.
6. Setting aside the impugned orders and remanding the matter to the Tribunal.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against orders dated 25.07.2000 and 03.06.2005 by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The delay in filing the appeal was condoned by a previous Bench, and the case had unusual circumstances as noted in the orders passed by the Court on 04.12.2007 and 29.01.2008.

2. The Court found discrepancies between a handwritten order and the final order dated 25.07.2000. The handwritten order allowed redemption of gold, but the final order dismissed the appeal. The Court viewed this as tampering with judicial records and took a serious view, emphasizing that once an order is passed and signed, it cannot be changed without proper procedures.

3. The President of the Tribunal submitted a report indicating that there was a difference of opinion among the members of the Bench regarding the redemption of seized gold. The report mentioned that both members had signed the handwritten order on 05.07.2000, which was later scored out, leading to a different order being passed on 25.07.2000. Both members had demitted office by the time of the report.

4. Considering the confusion and discrepancies, the Court set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration after hearing both parties. The Court emphasized the importance of upholding judicial integrity and ensuring that such incidents do not occur in the future. The Tribunal was directed to expedite the hearing and dispose of the appeal within three months.

5. The Court referred to a previous case involving a co-passenger in similar circumstances and directed the parties to appear before the Tribunal for further directions. The Tribunal was instructed to consider its decision in the previous case during the fresh consideration of the matter.

This detailed analysis highlights the issues of delay, discrepancies in orders, tampering with records, the President's report, and the decision to set aside the impugned orders for a fresh consideration by the Tribunal.