2012 (3) TMI 251 - HC - Central Excise

Petition filed for directing respondent to refrain from initiating denovo proceedings, pursuant to the final order dated 6.4.2011, pending disposal of the application for rectification of mistake, filed by the petitioner, before the CESTAT Held that - Court is not inclined to interfere with the final order dated 6.04.2011 passed by the CESTAT. It is for the tribunal to consider the rectification application filed by the petitioner, and pass appropriate orders - Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Petition for Writ of Mandamus to prevent denovo proceedings.
2. Vacancy in the post of Member (Judicial) affecting the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal proceedings.
3. Request for early hearing of the application by the petitioner.
4. Decision on the interference with the order of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought a Writ of Mandamus to stop the respondent from initiating denovo proceedings following a final order by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner filed an application for rectification of mistake, but it could not be heard due to the tribunal's vacancy in the post of Member (Judicial). The petitioner's counsel argued against initiating denovo proceedings until the rectification application was addressed.

2. The respondent's counsel suggested that the petitioner could request early hearing of the application before the Assistant Registrar of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, through a special sitting. The respondent did not support the petitioner's plea to halt denovo proceedings based on the tribunal's final order.

3. The Court declined to interfere with the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal's order at that stage. It emphasized that the tribunal should review the petitioner's application for rectification and make decisions in line with the law. The Writ Petition was dismissed without costs. The petitioner was advised to apply to the Assistant Registrar for an early hearing of the application, which the Assistant Registrar was expected to consider promptly.

4. The judgment emphasized the importance of the tribunal's review of the petitioner's application and the need for the petitioner to seek an early hearing through the appropriate channels. The decision not to interfere with the tribunal's order was based on the expectation that the tribunal would address the rectification application and make suitable determinations. The Court's stance was to allow the tribunal to handle the matter and for the petitioner to follow the necessary procedures for an early hearing.