9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in a customs case due to adjudication by an unauthorized officer. 2. Interpretation of the order by the President of the Tribunal regarding the competence to hear a difference of opinion. 3. Failure of the President to address all questions raised despite court directions. Detailed Analysis: 1. The case involved a dispute regarding the condonation of delay in a customs matter where the adjudication was done by an unauthorized officer, leading to a difference of opinion on whether the delay could be condoned. The Appellate Tribunal referred the matter to the President, questioning the extension of time sought for adjudication by the Principal Collector. The petitioner challenged the orders of the Tribunal and the Collector, arguing that the adjudication was not in line with the Tribunal's direction to the Principal Collector, and the officer lacked the jurisdiction to pass the order after the prescribed period had expired. 2. The Division Bench-I of the High Court initially disposed of the writ petition, suggesting that the points raised should be addressed before the President of the Tribunal. Due to the absence of a President at that time, the Vice President nominated a Member to handle the matter. Subsequently, another Division Bench addressed the issue, directing the petitioner to submit an application before the President for further consideration. The retired Chief Justice took over as the President, but there was a delay in addressing all the raised questions, leading to dissatisfaction with the handling of the case by the President. 3. The President eventually decided to hear the matter and condoned the delay but failed to provide findings on all the questions raised, despite the earlier direction from the Division Bench-I. The President's refusal to address all issues raised in the writ petition, as directed by the court, raised concerns about the adherence to the court's orders. The High Court highlighted the need for the President to understand and comply with the directions given by the Division Bench-I, suggesting that the matter be revisited by the same Division Bench to ensure appropriate handling and resolution of the case.
|
