9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 236X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o a case.” Further, in the case of Saheli Leasing & Industries Ltd., [2010 (5) TMI 9 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that after arguments are concluded, an endeavour should be made to pronounce the judgement at the earliest and in any case not beyond a period of 3 months. Keeping it pending for long time, sends a wrong signal to the litigants and the society. 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. - impugned order is set ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hagwandas Fatechand Daswani v. HA International Others AIR 2000 SC 775. (c) Kanhaiya Lal Ors. vs. Anup Kumar Ors AIR 2003 SC 689. (d) Devang Rasik Lal Vora vs. Union of India 2003 (158) ELT 30 (Bom). (e) Shivsagar Veg. Restaurant vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai 2009 (13) STR 11 (Bom) (f) Emco Ltd. vs. Union of India Others 2014-TIOL-222-HC-Mum-CX (g) Union of Carbide Corporation vs. Union of India AIR 1992 SC 248 2.1 The learned Counsel also submitted that the adjudicating authority has not considered certain points in the adjudication order and also not given findings on the issue of manufacturing of the impugned goods. Therefore, he prays that the Tribunal to first d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 08.2003 and the written submission was submitted by the appellants on 04.11.2013 but the impugned order was passed only on 31.01.2006. Therefore, there is a delay of 2 years in passing the order. 5.1 With regard to the learned Spl. Counsel's reliance on the decision of Bhagsons Paint Industry (supra) and submits that there is no time limit to adjudicate the show-cause notice. We do agree with the contention that there is no time limit for adjudication of the show-cause notice but in this case the hearing on the show-cause notice has been concluded on 23.08.2003 and the impugned order was passed after a period of 2 years. Therefore, this case has no relevant to the issue in hand. 5.2 With regard to the learned Spl. Counsel's re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the said case have not relevance to the case in hand. 5.4 Further, we find that the CEBC Circular No. 732/48/2003-CX dated 05.08.2003 reads as under:- I am directed to say that it has been brought to the notice of the Board that often there is delay in issue of Adjudication/Appellate orders in cases where personal hearing has already been concluded. In certain cases the issue of orders has taken substantially longer periods even after conclusion of personal hearing. This kind of situation could result mainly due to lack of proper supervision on the part of the senior officers. 2. Board has taken a serious view of the matter. In this connection your attention is invited to Board's Circular No.32/80-CX.6 dated 26 th Ju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ved that after arguments are concluded, an endeavour should be made to pronounce the judgement at the earliest and in any case not beyond a period of 3 months. Keeping it pending for long time, sends a wrong signal to the litigants and the society. 5.6 Further in the case of Kanhaiya Lal Others (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:- In the light of what is stated above, in our view, the impugned judgements cannot be sustained. Further, as stated above, the arguments were heard in November, 1990 and the High Court pronounced the judgements on 7 th May, 1993. This Court in Bhagwandas Fatechand Daswani and Ors. v. HPA International and Ors. MANU/SC0028/2000 ; (2000)1SCR2543 , dealing with the contention that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and to issue appropriate administrative directions to all the branches of the CEGAT in that behalf. The CESTAT had already drafted guidelines in this behalf. Again in the case of Shivsagar Veg. Restaurant (supra) the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under:- In the circumstances, without going into the merits, or demerits of the impugned order, delay in delivery of judgement by itself is sufficient to set aside the impugned order passed by the Appellate Tribunal to the extent, it is challenged by the appellant. Finally, the High Court allowed the appeal. 5.9 Further in the case of Synefra Engineering Construction ltd. v. CCE Pune 2012 (286) ELT 10 (Bom) again the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held that since the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
