2019 (2) TMI 892 - HC - Customs

Suspension and cancellation of registration - Held that - The learned Assistant Solicitor General has taken expeditious steps and ensured that a statement is placed on record appraising us of the steps taken to hear urgent matters by the Bangalore Bench. On instructions from the Principal Bench of CESTAT, we are informed that there would be a sitting of the Bangalore Bench between 18.02.2019 to 22.02.2019. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant also assures us that an appeal will be filed on Thursday, ie., day after tomorrow. Hence, if a proper appeal is filed, then we request the Bangalore Bench to take it up for admission and interim orders atleast on the 19th of February, 2019. Appeal closed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Exercise of discretion under Article 226 in the absence of a specific appeal provision against cancellation of registration.
2. Interpretation of Section 129 for appeal to the CESTAT.
3. Delay in constituting a proper Bench at the CESTAT Bangalore.
4. Expedited hearing of urgent matters by the CESTAT.

Analysis:
The judgment concerns an appeal filed against the refusal of exercise of discretion under Article 226 by a learned Single Judge, citing the availability of an alternate remedy of appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in Bangalore. The appellant's counsel argued that there is no specific appeal provision against the cancellation of registration, which is the core issue in one of the writ petitions. It was highlighted that although regulations for suspension and cancellation of registration and appeals to the CESTAT have been drafted but not notified, the cancellation orders were issued using inherent powers vested in the authority granting registration. On the other hand, the Assistant Solicitor General contended that the omnibus provision under Section 129 could enable an appeal to the CESTAT if the statutory authority was exercising inherent powers for cancellation. The Court noted that the specific contention regarding the absence of an appeal provision and the status of the draft regulations was not raised before the Single Judge.

Furthermore, the Court emphasized the need for a properly constituted Bench at the CESTAT Bangalore, especially considering the operational challenges faced by the Bangalore Bench, which had been functioning with only one member for the past two months. The Court expressed concerns over the delay in constituting a full Bench and directed the Assistant Solicitor General to provide information on the steps being taken to address this issue. Additionally, the Court instructed that urgent matters should be heard by any other Bench of the CESTAT to ensure timely resolution of cases. The Court scheduled a follow-up hearing to receive specific instructions on the actions taken to address these concerns.

In a subsequent update, the Court acknowledged the expeditious steps taken by the Assistant Solicitor General to address the urgent matters and ensure a sitting of the Bangalore Bench between specific dates. The Court was informed that an appeal would be filed promptly, and requested the Bangalore Bench to consider the appeal for admission and interim orders on a specified date. The Court clarified that its earlier observations were preliminary and should not influence the consideration of the application for interim relief. Ultimately, the Court closed the Writ Appeals, allowing the appellants to pursue their case before the CESTAT without imposing any costs.