TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 9X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate order has been passed. It is most important that the litigant must have complete confidence in the process of litigation and that this confidence would be shaken if there is excessive delay between the conclusion of the hearing and delivery of judgment. Delay by the Adjudicating Authority in rendering its order nine months after the conclusion of the hearing has caused prejudice to the Petitioner as it has not considered the evidence produced in respect of return of goods within 180 days - we set aside the impugned order dated 31 July 2013 and direct the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs to pass a fresh order after granting the Petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing - Decided in favour of assessee. - Writ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re received back within 180 days. However, the same was not taken into account while confirming the notice and imposing the penalty. The Petitioner submits that the Central Board of Central Excise and Customs has itself issued a circular dated 5 August 2003 directing the authorities under the Act to issue orders expeditiously after conclusion of hearing and not beyond a period of fifteen days. He also places reliance on the decision of this Court in Shivsagar Veg. Restaurant Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai {2009 (13) S.T.R. 11 (Bom) } and the decision of Apex Court in the matter of Anil Rai Vs. State of Bihar {2009 (13) S.T.R. 465 (SC) }. In the above view, the learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the impugned ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... does appear to have causesd prejudice to the Petitioner. This Court in the matter of Shivsagar Veg. Restaurant (supra) has, after considering the various decisions of the Apex Court, laid down that undue delay (four months) in delivery of judgment by the ITAT after the hearing is in itself sufficient to set aside the impugned order without considering the merits of the order. The Apex Court in the matter of Anil Rai (supra) has reiterated the observations made by an earlier Bench of Apex Court in R.C.Sharma Vs. Union of India {(1976) 3 SCC 574}, which reads as under : Nevertheless an unreasonable delay between hearing of arguments and delivery of judgment, unless explained by exceptional or extraordinary circumstances, is hi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
