9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (10) TMI 896 - HC - CustomsTerritorial Jurisdiction - Transfer of appeal - seeking issuance of directions not to hear the appeal by the Technical member whose appointment was challenged by the Advocate of the petitioner in the Honourable Supreme Court - HELD THAT - It is not feasible that Mr. Raju, Member (Technical) attached at Ahmedabad, who is perpetually on tour and the matter to be heard while sitting with the Member (Judicial), is also on tour, thus, it would most appropriate and suitable approach, would be, to direct the Ahmedabad Bench of CESTAT to decide the appeal through video conference, for the reason, that one of the technical Member i.e., Mr. Raju would be also technical Member of Bangalore Bench. The review petition is disposed of directing that the appeal pending before CESTAT, Bangalore shall be heard by Ahmedabad Bench through video conference as Bangalore Bench of CESTAT as expeditiously as possible, not later than within a period of forty five (45) days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
Issues:
1. Review of judgment dated 3-3-2020 in W.P. (C) No. 6312 of 2020. 2. Transfer of Appeal No. C/20005/2020 from South Zonal Bench of Appellate Tribunal at Karnataka to West Zonal Bench of Appellate Tribunal at Mumbai. 3. Concerns regarding the technical member, P. Anjali Kumar, for Bengaluru Bench. Issue 1: Review of Judgment The review petition sought to review the judgment dated 3-3-2020 in W.P. (C) No. 6312 of 2020. The petitioner raised concerns about the proceedings before the CESTAT at Bengaluru and requested a review based on certain errors apparent on record. The court considered the age of the petitioner, the interest of justice, and the apprehension of hearing the appeal by only two technical members. The court ordered the appeal pending before the CESTAT at Bengaluru to be heard by a judicial member and a different touring member other than those initially assigned for Bengaluru. Issue 2: Transfer of Appeal The petitioner, a senior citizen and resident of Mumbai, sought the transfer of the appeal from the South Zonal Bench to the West Zonal Bench due to the unavailability of two learned members at Bangalore. However, the court ruled that it did not have jurisdiction to order such a transfer. The counsel for the respondents informed the court about the technical members available and opposed the transfer. Ultimately, the court refrained from adjudicating the transfer request and advised the petitioner to make an application to the Appellate Tribunal under the Customs Act, 1962. Issue 3: Concerns Regarding Technical Member The petitioner expressed apprehensions about the technical member, P. Anjali Kumar, for the Bengaluru Bench, due to previous legal challenges to the appointment of technical members. The court acknowledged the importance of an unbiased and impartial hearing and ordered that the appeal be heard by a judicial member and a different touring member than the one assigned for Bengaluru. The court considered the interest of justice and equity in ensuring an impartial hearing process. In conclusion, the court disposed of the review petition by directing that the appeal pending before the CESTAT at Bengaluru should be heard by the Ahmedabad Bench through video conference as the Bangalore Bench of CESTAT. This decision aimed to expedite the appeal process and ensure a fair hearing, taking into account the concerns raised by the petitioner and the circumstances surrounding the case.
|
