2015 (6) TMI 861 - HC - Customs

High Court quashes orders, orders re-hearing for efficient dispute resolution.

SARTO ELECTRO EQUIPMENTS PVT. LTD. Versus UNION OF INDIA

The High Court quashed impugned orders due to discord among Bench Members, delays in finalizing the judgment, and the necessity for improved coordination ... Rectification of mistake - One member finding fault with another - Held that:- both, the main Appeal as also the rectification application have not been dealt with satisfactorily and there was extensive difference of opinion that we direct a rehearing of this Appeal. We once again emphasise the need for harmony, coordination and cooperation between the Members of the Bench, particularly in dealing with revenue matters. We expect that hereinafter, the differences of opinion would me minimal. They ought to be on issues and essentially on construction of legal provisions and interpretation of law. With regard to recording of facts and matters in connection therewith, we do not see how Members can repeatedly differ. If the facts are undisputed and agreed upon by parties and they present legal issues for resolution of the Tribunal, then, those deserve prominence. We are also not impressed by the attitude of one Member finding fault with the other while dealing with the contentions of the parties and essentially on facts. - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues:1. Difference of opinion between Members of the Bench on rectification of mistakes application.2. Delay in passing final orders leading to the need for a re-hearing of the Appeal.3. Lack of harmony, coordination, and cooperation between Members of the Bench.Analysis:Issue 1: Difference of opinion on rectification of mistakes applicationThe judgment reveals a significant disagreement between the Members of the Bench regarding the rectification of mistakes application. The Member (Technical) was inclined to dismiss the application, except for certain additions made in the main order. In contrast, the Member (Judicial) believed in allowing the application to address issues raised by litigants during the final hearing. This difference in views led to the drawing up of issues for resolution by a third Member. The lack of consensus on rectification further complicated the matter, highlighting the need for a re-hearing.Issue 2: Delay in passing final orders necessitating a re-hearingThe judgment highlights a substantial delay in pronouncing the final order after a difference of opinion arose among the Members of the Bench. Despite several hearings and the involvement of a third Member, no final opinion was rendered. This delay, coupled with the pendency of the Writ Petition, prompted the High Court to quash both impugned orders and direct a re-hearing of the Appeal by the West Zonal Bench. The Court emphasized the need for expeditious resolution and assigned the Appeal to Members who had not initially heard the case to ensure a fresh perspective.Issue 3: Lack of harmony and coordination among Bench MembersThe judgment underscores the importance of harmony, coordination, and cooperation among Members of the Bench, particularly in revenue matters. The Court expressed disappointment over the extensive differences of opinion and emphasized the minimalization of such disagreements, focusing on legal provisions and interpretation rather than factual disputes. The Court's directive for re-hearing aimed to promote a more cohesive approach in handling disputes, urging Members to prioritize undisputed facts and legal issues for efficient resolution.In conclusion, the High Court's decision to quash the impugned orders and order a re-hearing of the Appeal by the West Zonal Bench stemmed from the discord among Bench Members, delays in finalizing the judgment, and the necessity for improved coordination and cooperation in handling revenue matters. The judgment serves as a reminder of the importance of efficient dispute resolution and the need for a harmonious approach among Members of the Bench to ensure timely and just outcomes in legal proceedings.