2018 (10) TMI 575 - 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 - The decision in the case of GANDHAR OIL REFINERY (I) LTD., KUSHAL N. DESAI, VIVEK SAH, RAJIV PAREKH, SAH PETROLEUMS LTD. (NOW KNOWN AS GP PETROLEUMS LTD.) , APAR INDUSTRIES LTD. VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT) 2016 (10) TMI 157 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT equally applies to the present case, where it was held that 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. Impugned order set aside - Both the Appellant s appeals are restored to the Tribunal for fresh disposal, in accordance with law.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal challenging Tribunal's order passed after delay - Identical question of law regarding delay in passing order - Common order challenged by multiple parties - Restoration of appeal for fresh consideration.

Analysis:
The judgment by the High Court of Bombay pertains to two Appeals under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962, challenging a common order dated 26th June, 2016 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The learned Counsel for the Appellant raised an identical question of law in both Appeals, questioning the delay in passing the impugned order by the Tribunal. The issue was whether the Tribunal was correct in passing the order after a significant delay from the date of hearing, contrary to previous judgments of the Court. The Appeals were admitted on substantial questions of law, and at the parties' request, taken up for final disposal promptly.

The impugned order of the Tribunal dated 27th June, 2016, was a common order involving not only the two Appellants but also other parties. Subsequently, other parties challenged the order, leading to their appeals being allowed on September 26, 2016. The order dated 27th June, 2016 was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. The Court noted that the reasons stated in the order of September 26, 2016, in the appeals of other parties would equally apply to the present Appeals. Consequently, following the decision in the previous case, the Court allowed the Appeals, setting aside the impugned order, and restored both Appellants' appeals to the Tribunal for fresh disposal in accordance with the law.

In conclusion, the judgment left all contentions open to be raised before the Tribunal, ensuring that the parties have the opportunity to present their arguments and evidence in the fresh disposal of the appeals. The Court's decision focused on addressing the delay issue in passing the order and ensuring a fair and lawful process for the parties involved.