High Court quashes Tribunal order due to change in decision-maker, emphasizing consistency in decision-making

The High Court quashed the order of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal due to the change in the member deciding the case, despite the petitioner's absence during the final decision. The Court emphasized the importance of consistency in decision-makers and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for a fresh hearing to be conducted by either the Member (Judicial) or Member (Technical) to ensure adherence to legal procedures. The ruling was made absolute with no order as to costs and allowed for direct service.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to order of Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal under Articles 14, 19, 226, 265, and 300-A of the Constitution of India - Decision delivered by a different member than the one who heard the case - Allegations of lack of notice and absence during hearing - Request for exercise of extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged an order passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, in which the appeal by the revenue was allowed. The petitioner contended that the decision was made in their absence and by a different member of the Tribunal than the one who initially heard the case. The petitioner invoked Articles 14, 19, 226, 265, and 300-A of the Constitution of India, seeking relief under Article 226. The petitioner argued that the decision was rendered by a Member (Technical) of the Tribunal, despite being heard by a Member (Judicial), and without their presence during the final decision.

The case involved a private limited company engaged in the manufacture of certain products under the Central Excise Tariff Act. The dispute arose when officers found suspicious goods during road patrolling, leading to a show cause notice being issued. The proceedings were initially dropped but were later challenged by the revenue, resulting in the appeal before the Tribunal. The petitioner raised concerns about the decision-making process, specifically the change in the member deciding the case and the lack of their presence during the final decision.

The High Court examined the contentions raised by both parties. The respondent argued that notice of a fresh hearing was issued, which the petitioner received through a representative. The Court noted that the first contention of lack of notice was baseless as the notice was served, even if the petitioner claimed unawareness. However, the Court found merit in the second contention regarding the change in the member deciding the case, emphasizing the importance of consistency in decision-makers and citing relevant legal precedents.

Ultimately, the High Court quashed and set aside the impugned order, remanding the matter back to the Tribunal for a fresh hearing. The Court directed that the case should be heard and decided by either the Member (Judicial) or Member (Technical) of the Tribunal, emphasizing adherence to legal procedures. The ruling made the rule absolute to the extent specified, with no order as to costs and permitting direct service.

---