9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (9) TMI 858X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsure that justice is not only done but manifestly shown to be done - Tribunal is directed to hear the application for pre-deposit afresh and shall pass a reasoned order dealing with the judgments as mentioned therein. - W.P. No. 1053 of 2010, - - - Dated:- 15-9-2010 - Soumitra Pal, J. S/Shri P.K. Dutta and N.K. Chowdhury, Advocates, for the Petitioner. Shri N.C. Roy Chowdhury, Sr. Advocate and Ms. Shampa Sarkar, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order]. The Court : In the writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 1st February, 2010 and the order dated 30th July, 2010 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, East Zonal Bench, Kolkata, principally on the ground that though judgm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lkata (for short the Tribunal ) directing them to deposit a sum of Rs. 75 lakhs within a period of eight weeks from that date. The matter was moved on 26th March, 2010 when directions were issued for filing of affidavits. Affidavits have since been exchanged and are on records. Referring to paragraph-27 of the writ petition it is submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that while passing the impugned order the Tribunal did not consider the decisions which were relied at the time of hearing. It is submitted that the submissions in paragraphs 24 to 30 of the writ petition have not been dealt with in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the department. Learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents submits tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly, 2010 by the Tribunal, the petitioners filed an application for recalling and/or variation of the order dated 1st February, 2010 passed by the Tribunal. Earlier the petitioners had moved the writ petition, being WP No. 379 of 2010, with a grievance that the judgments cited were not considered. As this Court was not in a position to ascertain whether those judgments at the time of hearing were cited or not, as seen, the writ petition was disposed of by granting liberty to file appropriate application before the Tribunal. Accordingly, application was filed. Subsequently, an application for recall and/or variation of the order dated 1st February, 2010 was also filed. It appears that the Tribunal though while passing the impugned order dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Tribunal being a creature of the statute has to follow the mandate laid down in the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982 in its true spirit. Moreover, the Tribunal has to ensure that justice is not only done but manifestly shown to be done. In the instant case, as it is evident from the order dated 30th July, 2010 that judgments particularly in Lakshman Export (supra) cited by the petitioners were not dealt with, in my view, there has been denial of justice as postulated in Rule 41. It lends credence to the submission of the petitioner that judgments cited were not considered and dealt with in the orders impugned. It is to be noted that the Tribunal while protecting the interests of the Revenue, canno ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
