2003 (8) TMI 54 - HC - Central Excise

Remand - Appeal to Appellate Tribunal - Delay in disposal - Principles of Natural Justice - HELD THAT -Recently the Apex Court in the case of Anil Rai v. State of Bihar 2001 (8) TMI 1330 - SUPREME COURT had also an occasion to consider the serious issue of delayed delivery of judgment by some of the High Courts and had occasion to lay down certain guidelines regarding pronouncement of judgments by the High Courts. The similar guidelines can conveniently be laid down for the CEGAT so as to prevent delayed delivery of the judgments which at the end of the day results in denial of justice as happened in the instant case. We therefore direct the President of the CEGAT to frame and lay down the guidelines in the similar lines as are laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Anil Rai v. State of Bihar 2001 (8) TMI 1330 - SUPREME COURT and to issue appropriate administrative directions to all the benches of the CEGAT in that behalf. We hope and trust that suitable guidelines shall be framed and issued by the President of the CEGAT and followed strictly by all the benches of the CEGAT. Now turning to the merits of the challenges made out to the impugned order prima facie we are satisfied that some of the vital points raised in the petition and canvassed before us are not to be found in the judgment of the CEGAT though according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner they were canvassed before the CEGAT. Omission to make reference to the contentions canvassed can only be attributed to the delayed delivery of judgment. In the circumstances without going to the merits or demerits of the impugned order delay in delivery of judgment by itself is sufficient to set aside the impugned order passed by the CEGAT to the extent it is challenged by the petitioner arising out of Appeal Nos. C/500 of 1988 and C/614 of 1988. In the result petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside to the extent it is challenged and the appeals being Appeal Nos. C/500 of 1988 and C/614 of 1988 are restored to the file of the CEGAT with direction to rehear of the said appeals filed at the instance of the petitioner and decide the same afresh with a reasoned order dealing with all contentions raised and canvassed on its own merits. All the rival contentions are kept open for being decided by the CEGAT on its own merits. Petition stands disposed of in terms of this order with no order as to costs.

Summary

Issues Involved:
The petition challenged the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control), Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench, Mumbai ("CEGAT") dismissing Appeal Nos. C/614 of 1988 and C/500 of 1988 filed by the petitioner.

Delay in Delivery of Judgment:
The petitioner complained about the significant delay in the delivery of the judgment by CEGAT, which took more than two years from the date of hearing. This delay allegedly prejudiced the petitioner as CEGAT failed to consider various relevant contentions raised during the appeals and overlooked its own earlier orders that supported the petitioner's case. The absence of findings on the merits of the case in the impugned order indicated a lack of application of mind by CEGAT, attributed to the delayed judgment.

Principles of Natural Justice:
The petitioner argued that the delay in pronouncing the judgment negated the right of appeal conferred by the Statute. The delay was considered unjust as it prevented a reasonable and quick adjudication, thereby affecting the petitioner's rights. The petitioner cited legal precedents emphasizing that justice should not only be done but should also appear to have been done, and any delay in rendering judgments can lead to a denial of justice.

Guidelines for Timely Judgments:
Referring to legal cases, including R.C. Sharma v. Union of India and Anil Rai v. State of Bihar, the court highlighted the importance of timely delivery of judgments to maintain litigants' confidence in the legal system. The court directed the President of CEGAT to frame guidelines similar to those laid down by the Apex Court in Anil Rai case to prevent delayed judgments and ensure justice is not denied due to unnecessary delays.

Decision and Directions:
The court set aside the impugned order due to the delay in delivery of judgment, restoring Appeal Nos. C/500 of 1988 and C/614 of 1988 to the file of CEGAT for rehearing. The CEGAT was instructed to decide the appeals afresh with a reasoned order addressing all contentions raised by the petitioner. The decision was made with no order as to costs, and the President of CEGAT was directed to take action in accordance with the guidelines issued within three months.