9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 236X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng authority on 23.08.2003. Thereafter, then advocate for the appellant submitted the detailed written submissions on 04.11.2003 and the impugned order was passed only on 31.01.2006. There is an inordinate delay in passing the order, hence this order is required to be set aside and remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration. In support of this contention, the learned Advocate relied on the CBEC Circular No. 732/48/2003-CX dated 05.08.2003 wherein it was directed that the concerned adjudicating authority as well as the appellate authority should pass the order within a period of one month from the date of conclusion of personal hearing. In support of his contention the learned Advocate relied on the followin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me limit framed to adjudicate the show-cause notice as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE v. Bhagsons Paint Industry (India) - 2003 (158) ELT 129 (S.C.). He also submitted that the appeal proceeding is a continuation of original proceedings as held by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case ofUOI v. Shashi Deo Jha - 1999 (113) ELT 385 (Cal) and in the case of Perfect Engineering Works v. CCE Baroda - 1996 (81) ELT 182 (T). The learned Spl. Counsel also submitted that the Tribunal should decide all the points simultaneously together with preliminary objections of the appellants as held by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Sarabhai Electronics Ltd. v. UOI - 1991 (53) ELG 549 (Guj). Therefore, he s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion. In the said case the Hon'ble High Court itself held that it is obvious that the petitioners are pursuing two parallel proceedings in respect of the same subject matter. After having failed to obtain a favourable order on preliminary objection raised in appeal, the petitioners have approached this Court and the petitioners request this Court to decide the preliminary objection raised by them in appeal. Therefore, the question arisen before the High Court has the appellate Tribunal following the correct procedure and if not, should this High Court also follow the same erroneous path and permit the petitioners to challenge the decision on preliminary objection while keeping the appeal filed before the appellate Tribunal pending and a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was directed to communicate the decision to the assessee within a reasonable time of 5 days and if the above time limit cannot be adhered to in a particular case, the order should be issued within 15 days or at most one month from the date of conclusion of personal hearing. Despite the CBEC Circular cited here-in-above, the impugned order is passed beyond the time limit prescribed by CBEC. Therefore, the question is whether the principles of natural justice has been followed or not? 5.5 Further we find that in the case of Bhagsons Paint Industry (supra) 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 cor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xtent that a long delay in delivery of judgement gives rise to unnecessary speculations in the minds of parties to a case. Moreover, the appellants whose appeals have been dismissed by the High Court may have the apprehension that the arguments raised at the Bar have not been reflected or appreciated while dictating the judgement - nearly after five years ............... We, therefore, on this short question, set aside the judgement under appeal." 5.7 Our own jurisdictional High Court of Bombay also observed in the case of Devang Rasik Lal Vora (supra) that it has been held time and again that justice should not be done but should also appear to have been done. Similarly, whereas justice delayed is justice denied, justice withheld is even ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so we find that the hearing was concluded on 23.08.2003 and the written submission was filed by the appellant on 04.11.2013 thereafter the impugned order was passed with an inordinate delay of more than two years. In these circumstances, we do agree with the contentions of the learned Counsel. 5.11 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. 6. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back with direction to the adjudicating a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
