9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (12) TMI 88 - HC - Central ExciseOn what basis is an issue concerning the jurisdiction of the CESTAT to entertain an appeal on the judicial side being referred by the Bench of the CESTAT to the President of the CESTAT on the administrative side? - Held that - Respondent no.1- CESTAT, has filed an affidavit through its Registrar. It is stated by the respondent that the matter was listed on the judicial side, when the two members Bench had referred the matter to the President on the question of jurisdiction - The explanation is also being given in view of the order passed by the Allahabad High Court dated 20th August, 2015, a copy of which has been enclosed as Annexure-B . Pre-deposit - maintainability of the appeal in absence of mandatory deposit - Held that - practice directions have been issued with regard to the removal of objections by the Registry, listing of matters, inspection, furnishing of certified copies etc. Mr. Mittal states that these directions are not being complied with. This aspect would also be examined and appropriate administrative orders can be issued - The appeals filed by the petitioners, which is still awaiting registration in the Registry of the Tribunal would be registered as per Rules, for hearing, within two weeks from today and the date of hearing would be communicated to the learned counsel for the petitioners. Petition disposed off.
Issues:
1. Delay in registration and listing of appeal before CESTAT 2. Referral of jurisdiction issue to President of CESTAT 3. Notices regarding maintainability of appeal due to pre-deposit 4. Denial of file inspection requests 5. Compliance with practice directions for listing matters Analysis: 1. The petitioners raised concerns over the delay in registering and listing their appeal before the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The High Court issued notice to CESTAT, seeking clarification on the jurisdiction issue and the reason behind notices on maintainability due to pre-deposit. 2. Respondent no.1, CESTAT, explained that the matter was referred to the President for jurisdiction clarification by a two-member Bench. The reference was made in light of an order from the Allahabad High Court. The issue of pre-deposit notices was attributed to an inadvertent error by the Tribunal's Registry, requesting condonation for the mistake. 3. The High Court emphasized the importance of expeditiously hearing appeals, especially when substantial pre-deposits are involved. It highlighted that matters of territorial jurisdiction should be decided judicially and not administratively. The Court acknowledged the petitioners' anxiety for prompt disposal of their appeals, urging for proper listing on the judicial side. 4. The Court noted the petitioner's complaints regarding denial of file inspection requests on multiple occasions. It stressed the need for an adequate mechanism to address such administrative issues effectively, ensuring transparency and fairness in the process. 5. During the proceedings, the petitioner's counsel mentioned non-compliance with practice directions related to removal of objections by the Registry, listing of matters, file inspection, and provision of certified copies. The Court assured that these compliance issues would be examined, and appropriate administrative orders would be issued to rectify the situation. 6. Ultimately, the High Court directed that the appeals filed by the petitioners, pending registration in the Tribunal's Registry, should be registered within two weeks as per rules. The Court instructed that the date of hearing would be communicated to the petitioners' counsel promptly, resolving the delay issue in the registration process. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.
|
