2016 (10) TMI 157 - HC - Customs

Admission and disposal of appeal - substantial question of law - Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellate tribunal is right in passing the order after five months twenty days from the date of hearing contrary to the judgment of this court in the case of Shivsagar Veg. Restaurant vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai 2008 (11) TMI 64 - HIGH COURT BOMBAY ? Held that - If detailed contentions is noted and in the earlier paragraphs with the reliance by parties on case law, the appeals emphasising the prejudice by refusal of the adjudicating authority to allow a cross examination of the official who carried out the test and parties rely on the tribunal s interim orders, whether all of them have an impact and to what extent has not been satisfactorily concluded. The tribunal has not, beyond one paragraph, adverted to the factual exercise and which was permitted by the tribunal by its interim orders. By consent, certain directions were issued and what has resulted therefrom and whether that aids and assists the tribunal in arriving at the final conclusion has not been adverted to. No reference to these aspects found. What facts and circumstances have been carefully examined has not been clarified. Once the manner in which the tribunal has dealt with the appeals is not agreed, then, no alternative exists, but to quash and set aside the impugned order. Appeals stand restored to the file of the tribunal to be disposed of finally and on merits. The tribunal need not waste its time in passing any interim orders. Both sides concede that the appeals can be disposed of finally and none of them is interested in placing additional documents or facts on record. The only document that the tribunal can refer is a brief synopsis of the written submissions, if at all required and brought forward by the parties. The tribunal, however must pass a detailed order uninfluenced by the impugned order - the tribunal to take up the appeals for expeditious disposal and endeavour to dispose of the same preferably by 31st December, 2016.

Issues:
1. Disposal of appeals by the tribunal without reasoned order.
2. Contention regarding delay in passing the order.
3. Dispute over the release of seized goods.
4. Admissibility of the appeals based on substantial question of law.
5. Lack of detailed examination of contentions by the tribunal.
6. Quashing of the impugned order and restoration of appeals to the tribunal for final disposal.

Issue 1: Disposal of appeals by the tribunal without reasoned order
The appellants contended that the tribunal failed to pass a reasoned order dealing with all contentions and merits of the controversy, abdicating its duty as a fact-finding court. The tribunal's order was criticized for being cryptic and unreasoned, not providing a satisfactory conclusion on the issues raised by the parties. The High Court expressed dissatisfaction with the manner in which the tribunal handled the appeals, emphasizing the importance of detailed examination of factual matters and legal provisions before reaching a conclusion.

Issue 2: Contention regarding delay in passing the order
The High Court raised a substantial question of law regarding the delay in passing the tribunal's order, contrary to previous judgments. The delay of five months and twenty days from the date of the hearing was questioned, highlighting the necessity for timely disposal of appeals. Both parties consented to the admission and final disposal of the appeals based on this substantial question of law, indicating a shared concern over the delayed resolution of the dispute.

Issue 3: Dispute over the release of seized goods
The dispute revolved around the release of seized goods, particularly hazardous waste, imported by the appellants. The tribunal's order upheld the application of the Hazardous Waste Rules to the imported products, dismissing the appeals. The appellants raised concerns regarding the refusal to retest the sample and the rejection of the request for cross-examination of the chemical examiner. The High Court noted the lack of urgency displayed for the release or expedited disposal of the seized goods, leading to a dispute over the tribunal's handling of the matter.

Issue 4: Admissibility of the appeals based on substantial question of law
Both parties agreed to dispose of the appeals finally based on the substantial question of law raised regarding the delay in passing the tribunal's order. The High Court admitted the appeals for consideration on this question and proceeded to dispose of them after detailed analysis of the issues involved in the case.

Issue 5: Lack of detailed examination of contentions by the tribunal
The High Court criticized the tribunal for failing to adequately examine the detailed contentions presented by the parties, especially regarding the refusal of cross-examination and the impact of interim orders. The tribunal's order was deemed insufficient in addressing the factual exercise permitted by interim orders and the submissions made by the parties. The lack of reference to key aspects and the absence of a thorough examination of facts and circumstances led the High Court to quash and set aside the impugned order.

Issue 6: Quashing of the impugned order and restoration of appeals to the tribunal for final disposal
Due to the unsatisfactory handling of the appeals by the tribunal, the High Court quashed the impugned order and restored the appeals to the tribunal for final disposal on merits. The tribunal was directed to focus on the core issues, refer to all factual matters, consider findings by laboratories, analyze rival contentions, and provide reasons for its conclusions. The High Court emphasized expeditious disposal of the appeals without the need for interim orders, setting a deadline for the tribunal to resolve the matter by the end of the year.

← Previous Next →