2009 (5) TMI 74 - HC - Central Excise

Appeal to tribunal section 35B - According to the petitioner the arguments in the appeal were heard by the Commissioner (Appeals) on 14-5-2008 but despite lapse of considerable time orders in the appeal were not pronounced by the Appellate Authority forcing the petitioner to approach this Court for a declaration to the effect that the failure of the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal within a reasonable time was illegal arbitrary and mala fide. held that - we feel that in case the petitioner is aggrieved of the order passed in the appeal he ought to seek remedy against the same in appropriate proceedings in accordance with the statutory provisions. If the delay in disposal of the appeal is said to be a ground of attack against the order it shall be open to the petitioner to urge the said ground also in which event the Tribunal before whom the appeal is filed is expected to examine the said aspect also. writ petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues: Delay in disposal of appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) and legality of the Appellate Authority's order.

In this judgment by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, the petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing an early disposal of an appeal pending before the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise & Customs, Chandigarh. The petitioner claimed that despite the arguments being heard in May 2008, the orders were not pronounced, leading to the petition. The Court issued notice to the respondents and directed the Standing Counsel to verify the status of the appeal. The Standing Counsel confirmed that the appeal had been disposed of, rendering the petition moot. However, the petitioner argued that the delay in disposal alone rendered the Appellate Authority's order illegal. The Court disagreed, stating that the delay could be raised as a ground of attack in appropriate proceedings, emphasizing the need to seek remedy within statutory provisions. The Court disposed of the writ petition, allowing the petitioner to challenge the order in separate proceedings, with each party bearing their own costs. The judgment highlights the importance of following statutory procedures and seeking appropriate remedies for grievances, rather than challenging orders solely based on delay in disposal.