NAVSHAKTI INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. Vs. CESTAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the very threshold we disapprove of the practice of a judicial/quasi -judicial Tribunal/Authority which in this case is the CESTAT, and whose orders are impugned, being impleaded as a respondent. The Registry is directed not to register any petition which arrays as a respondent a judicial/quasi -judicial Tribunal/Authority whose orders are being challenged. If mala fides are specifically alleged against a member of such Tribunal/Authority, then such person will have to be impleaded subject to there being specific averments in that regard. This writ petition challenges the extension of time granted under the proviso to Sec. 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. It has been observed by the Tribunal that despite many opportunities being granted to the petitioner to cooperate in the investigation, it chose not to, and this necessitated the extension. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the six months period was expiring on 2 -9 -2006. No adjournment was granted beyond 1 -9 -2006, despite the request on behalf of the petitioner. The CESTAT has observed that if any further extension had been granted, the six months period would have expired, thereby rendering the entire proceedings non est.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the decision of the Constitution Bench in I.]. Rao, Asstt. Collr. of Customs v/s. Bibhuti Bhushan Singh, : 1989 (42) E.L.T. 338 (S.C.). Their Lordships had stressed the importance of taking a well -informed and reasoned decision on the question whether an extension was to be granted beyond the period of six months. In this regard it had been observed that a notice should issue to the party concerned so that they could show cause against the proposed extension of time.

(3.) Notice has been issued in the present case. However, it is the petitioner's contention that adequate time was not granted. That is a debatable question. However, in this very judgment it has been observed by their Lordships that a party who has not been afforded an opportunity of being heard can be given a post -decisional hearing. On this basis, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that a post -decisional hearing should be granted.