9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 896X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - - Dated:- 5-2-2021 - Amit Rawal, J. Shri P.A. Augustian, Advocate, for the Petitioner. Shri Rajesh K. Raju, Advocate, for the Respondent. ORDER This is a review petition seeking review of the judgment dated 3-3-2020 in W.P. (C) No. 6312 of 2020 [2020 (373) E.L.T. 24 (Ker.)]. 2. In the main writ petition after considering the rival contention of the parties as well as the material on record, the following order, dated 3rd March 2020, was passed : Petitioner, aged 73 years, a permanent resident of Mumbai has approached this Court seeking transfer of the Appeal No. C/20005/2020 from the South Zonal Bench of Appellate Tribunal at Karnataka to the West Zonal Bench of Appellate Tribunal at Mumbai and for issuance of further 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. 2. The petitioner is carrying on business under the name and style of M/s. R. Kishin Company, being a sole proprietor indulging in import and export of sports items. Import of goods valued at ₹ 7,62,50,396/- were allegedly seized by the Custom Officers at Maharashtra and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o know that he had filed WP (C) No. 205/2018 under Article 32 of the Constitution of India challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 16-2-2018 passed by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training, Secretariat of the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet whereby five persons were nominated to be appointed as Technical Members of CESTAT. The Honourable Supreme Court ordered to implead them as respondents Nos. 4 to 8 in the aforementioned writ petition. Later the Honourable Supreme Court vide order dated 13-11-2019 disposed of the writ petition along with the 6 connected petitions, by granting certain reliefs, including interim measures, allowing the technical members to continue till such time the Government frames the fresh set of Rules of appointment. It is further submitted that petitioner has an apprehension that hearing of appeal along with the technical member P. Anjali Kumar for Bengaluru Bench need not carry a prejudice. 5. As far as the case of transfer from South Zonal Bench to West Zonal Bench, it is submitted that the petitioner is a senior citizen and resident of Mumbai and there is no regular bench o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... expressed no objection. 9. In view of what has been stated above, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the appeal of the petitioner pending before the CESTAT at Bengaluru shall be heard by judicial member and a different touring member than the one assigned for the Bengaluru also other than C.I. Mahar, Sanjeev Sreevastava, Sri. P. Venkita Suba Rao respondents in the writ petition before Supreme Court. 3. On 20-1-2021 when the review petition was listed, this Court, passed the following order : The prayer in the application is for review of the judgment dated 3-3-2020 in W.P. (C). 6312/20 as this Court, while accepting second relief of the petitioner with regard to holding of the proceedings pending before the CESTAT at Bengaluru, had directed the authorities to hold the proceedings with members other than those members mentioned therein. 2. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that there are two technical members; Mr. C.J. Mathew at Madras and Mr. Raju at Ahmedabad, one of them can be a technical member with the judicial member through VC, in the matter pending before the CESTAT, Bangalore. Issue notice. Mr. B. Rajesh acc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provisions of section 129 of Customs Act, 1962, but for effective adjudication this Court can deem it expedient to make arrangement only for the purpose of virtual hearing as prayer for transfer of the matter was not pressed. 1.6 On the other hand, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the review petitioner submits, visiting technical member is not being able to hear the appeals of the petitioner. 1.7 I have heard Learned Counsel for the parties. For considering the request, this Court deem it appropriate to seek comments of Registrar of CESTAT, Regional CESTAT, South Zonal Bench, Bangalore, whether it would be expedient to constitute Bench of member presiding Ahmedabad Bench of CESTAT through video conferencing as Bangalore Bench of CESTAT. Let the comments be sent within one week from receipt of order of this Court. 5. In view of the order, comments of Assistant Registrar CESTAT, Bangalore have been received by communication dated 3-2-2021. The relevant portion of the same is as under : The order in RP No. 27/2021 in W.P. (C) No. 6312/2020 of the Hon ble High Court was placed before the Registrar, CESTAT, New Delhi for his comments. The comments received from the R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
