9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (3) TMI 311X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... livery of order after conclusion of hearing. Minutes of order looking to consensus between advocates, directed to be filed. Minutes not as pr consensus reached inasmuch as para 3 thereof stating that question of law No. (b) and (c) answered in favour of Appellants. Explanation of mistake not acceptable. Not a bonafide mistake. Advocates took chance before court to get appeal disposed on merits. Court attemped to be taken for ride. Revenue Advocate expected to be more diligent as obligatory on his part to protect revenue interest. - 79 of 2009 with 80 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 11-3-2010 - V.C. Daga and K.K. Tated, JJ. Shri HR. Shetty i/b H.R. Shethy Co., for the Appellant. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt Judgment of Shaikh Mohammed Umer reported in 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1439 Supreme Court, after total abolishing the gold control order in the year of 1990. The gold biscuits are not at all prohibited goods after liberalization of import policy. (c) Was the CESTAT justified in passing order of absolute confiscation of 11 Gold bars on 5th July, 2005 after a delay of almost six months from the date of hearing on 25th January, 2005. 2. The above appeals were finally heard by this court on 28th January, 2010. During the course of hearing, one of the contentions raised by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant related to third question extracted herein above in addition to the submissions made on first two questions. 3. This Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the terms thereof follows. 5 . In the case in hand, when the minutes of order were presented for acceptance of Court, this Court was surprised to read para-3 of the minutes of order reading as under: "3. Question of Low No.(b) and (c) are answered in favour of the Appellants." 6. The aforesaid minutes of order were not as per the consensus reached between the advocates appearing for the rival parties. Consequently, advocates appearing for the parties were asked as to how para-3 was inserted in the minutes of order showing that question Nos. (b) and (c) are answered in favour of the appellants, especially, when the appeal was not be decided on merits and the impugned order was to be set aside without examining the merits or demer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this appeal, which is evident on the face of record itself. 10. The Apex Court in the case of R.C. Sharma v. Union of India (supra) was pleased to hold that delayed delivery of justice results in manifest injustice and results in denial of justice. In the very same appeal it was argued that some contentions raised by the appellant before the Tribunal were not considered. In this view of the matter, without examining merits or demerits of the impugned order, the said order is being set aside on the ground of delayed delivery of judgment leaving all other questions open for being argued afresh before the Tribunal. 11. In the above backdrop, question No. (c) is, accordingly, answered holding that the Tribunal was not justified in passi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
