9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (7) TMI 454 - HC - CustomsHolding of Video Conferencing - Commencement of physical hearing in the first week of July, 2020 - HELD THAT - From the report it is evident that though the CESTAT was willing to hold the video conferencing but the members of the Bar were not in favour. On a representation of Bar Association President, CESTAT, New Delhi was requested to commence physical hearing on first week of July, 2020. petitioner has already filed the appeal. But, the only apprehension is that there is no hearing either physical or through video. In view of the report of the Registrar General, no further course of action in the review petition seeking the clarification of the order whereby petitioner was given liberty to avail the remedy of appeal is required. Petition disposed off.
Issues:
- Conducting video conferencing for hearings at CESTAT - Preference of physical hearings by members of the Bar - Vacancy of Technical Member post at Bangalore Bench of CESTAT - Petitioner seeking clarification on the order for appeal remedy Analysis: The High Court of Kerala, under the review petition, requested a report from the Registrar General regarding the feasibility of video hearings at the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in Bangalore. The report highlighted that although video conferencing was possible and a scheme was in place, members of the Bar were not comfortable with the system, citing delays in case resolution. The Bar Association President requested the commencement of physical hearings in July 2020. Additionally, it was noted that there is a vacancy for the post of Technical Member at the Bangalore Bench of CESTAT. Considering the report's contents, it was evident that CESTAT was willing to conduct video conferencing, but the Bar members preferred physical hearings. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's appeal but noted the absence of any hearing, either physical or through video. Consequently, the review petition was disposed of based on the Registrar General's report, indicating no further action was necessary to clarify the order granting the petitioner the liberty to pursue an appeal.
|
