9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (2) TMI 660 - AT - CustomsStatus of applicant - functus officio - rule 28C, read with rule 28A, of the Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982 - Held that - applicant is not a respondent on record and that, as adjudicating author of the order impugned before us, he is functus officio. The adjudicating authority has no existence with the closure of proceedings initiated in a show cause notice and, deprived of the faculty of initiative, is thereafter a mindless slave to directions of designated authorities empowered under Customs Act, 1962. The present applications are beyond the scope of empowerment under the statute and are liable to dismissed on that ground alone. Here we have an applicant without locus standii, who chooses neither to appear in person or be properly represented, who has demonstrably established his ignorance of records that he wants expunged and who has, with total disregard of Customs Act, 1962, of the rules of procedure and of code of decorous conduct, sought remedies that are not available to right wrongs that are imagined. The applications are devoid of merit and are dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality and propriety of the adjudicating authority's intervention in appellate proceedings. 2. Competence of the adjudicating authority to seek transfer of the appeal to another bench. 3. The procedural appropriateness of the miscellaneous applications filed by the adjudicating authority. 4. The impact of the adjudicating authority's actions on the dignity and functioning of the Tribunal. Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality and Propriety of the Adjudicating Authority's Intervention in Appellate Proceedings: The Tribunal questioned the legality, propriety, and competence of the adjudicating authority, Shri KVS Singh, in seeking relief through miscellaneous applications. The Tribunal emphasized that an adjudicating authority becomes functus officio upon concluding proceedings and cannot defend or challenge its findings in appellate proceedings. The Tribunal cited the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in Mohamed Oomer, Mohamed Noorullah v. SM Noorudin, which disapproved of attempts by a subordinate authority to influence appellate decisions. 2. Competence of the Adjudicating Authority to Seek Transfer of the Appeal to Another Bench: The Tribunal noted that the applicant, Shri KVS Singh, was not a respondent in the appeals and thus lacked the authority to seek the transfer of the appeal to another bench. The Tribunal highlighted that the Customs Act, 1962, does not empower an adjudicating authority to intervene in appellate proceedings once it has concluded its adjudication. The Tribunal referenced the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in Areva T&D India Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs (Exports), Mumbai, which restricts the authority for such prayers. 3. Procedural Appropriateness of the Miscellaneous Applications Filed by the Adjudicating Authority: The Tribunal found the miscellaneous applications to be procedurally inappropriate and without merit. The applications sought unprecedented reliefs, including the transfer of the appeal and expunging of records, which are not remedies available under the statute. The Tribunal criticized the applicant for not appearing in person or being properly represented, and for demonstrating ignorance of the records he sought to expunge. The Tribunal emphasized that ex parte orders are valid and that the grant of adjournments is at the court's discretion. 4. Impact of the Adjudicating Authority's Actions on the Dignity and Functioning of the Tribunal: The Tribunal expressed concern over the impact of the adjudicating authority's actions on the dignity of the Tribunal. The Tribunal noted that the applications were filed without ascertaining facts and in a frivolous and casual manner, thus affecting the Tribunal's authority. The Tribunal directed the applicant, Shri KVS Singh, to appear before the Bench to explain his stand and make any statement in mitigation. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the miscellaneous applications filed by the adjudicating authority, Shri KVS Singh, as devoid of merit. The main appeal was listed for continuation of hearing on 15th February 2018. The Tribunal also directed Shri KVS Singh to appear before the Bench to explain his actions and make any statement in mitigation.
|
