9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (9) TMI 236 - AT - CustomsValidity of order passed after inordinate delay of 2 years in passing the order - last hearing was held before the adjudicating authority on 23.08.2003 - order was passed only on 31.01.2006. - Held that - in the case of Bhagsons Paint Industry 2003 (10) TMI 49 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA the Hon ble Supreme Court has set aside the decision of the Hon ble Madras High Court on the ground of long delay in delivery of judgment and also observed that however, it is correct to this extent that a long delay in delivery of judgement gives rise to unnecessary speculations in the minds of parties to a case. Further, in the case of Saheli Leasing & Industries Ltd., 2010 (5) TMI 9 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA the Hon ble Supreme Court observed that after arguments are concluded, an endeavour should be made to pronounce the judgement at the earliest and in any case not beyond a period of 3 months. Keeping it pending for long time, sends a wrong signal to the litigants and the society. Further, the learned Counsel through his written submission brought certain facts to our notice that the adjudicating authority has not considered certain issues in the impugned order. Therefore, we find it would be in the interest of natural justice to remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority for denovo adjudication. - impugned order is set aside - matter remanded back for fresh decision.
Issues:
Delay in passing the order, consideration of points in adjudication order, time limit for adjudicating show-cause notice, relevance of various legal judgments, principles of natural justice, adherence to CBEC Circular, significance of timely judgment delivery. Analysis: 1. Delay in Passing Order: The main issue raised was the significant delay in passing the order after the conclusion of the hearing. The appellant argued that the order was passed over two years after the hearing, which was beyond a reasonable time frame. This delay was considered unreasonable and contrary to the principles of natural justice. 2. Consideration of Points in Adjudication Order: The appellant contended that certain points were not adequately considered in the adjudication order, specifically regarding the issue of manufacturing of the impugned goods. This lack of consideration led to the request for a fresh consideration of the matter by the adjudicating authority. 3. Time Limit for Adjudicating Show-Cause Notice: The respondent argued that there was no specific time limit for adjudicating the show-cause notice, citing legal precedents. However, the Tribunal noted that while there was no fixed time limit, the delay in this case was excessive and not justified. 4. Relevance of Legal Judgments: Both parties relied on various legal judgments to support their arguments regarding the time frame for passing orders and the procedural aspects of the appeal process. The Tribunal carefully analyzed these judgments to determine their applicability to the present case. 5. Adherence to CBEC Circular: The Tribunal highlighted the CBEC Circular directing timely communication of decisions after the conclusion of personal hearings. Despite the clear directive, the impugned order was passed beyond the prescribed time limit, raising questions about adherence to procedural guidelines. 6. Significance of Timely Judgment Delivery: The Tribunal referenced several legal cases emphasizing the importance of timely delivery of judgments to uphold the principles of natural justice. Long delays were viewed unfavorably, as they could lead to speculations and undermine confidence in the legal process. 7. Decision and Remand: After considering the arguments and legal principles, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order due to the excessive delay and remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority for fresh adjudication. This decision aimed to ensure a fair and timely resolution of the case in line with the principles of natural justice. In conclusion, the judgment focused on the procedural irregularities, delay in passing orders, and the importance of adhering to established legal principles to uphold the integrity of the adjudication process.
|
