2025 (10) TMI 745 - HC - Customs

Petition allowed, impugned CESTAT order quashed and matter remanded for fresh consideration due to delay and natural justice breach

HC allowed the petition, quashed the impugned CESTAT order and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. The court found a huge delay ... Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy - huge delay in passing the order - HELD THAT:- In the wake of this undisputed position, when there is a huge delay in passing of the order by the CESTAT and though it is specifically contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the relevant point has not been taken into consideration, without going into the same, merely on the ground of delay, it is constrained to quash the impugned order and remand the matter back to the Tribunal for its fresh consideration. Needless to state that by taking into consideration all the points raised in the Appeal, the arguments to be advanced, and it is expected that the decision to be taken forthwith. Availability of alternative remedy - HELD THAT:- In the wake of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Whirlpool Corporation v/s. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & Ors., [1998 (10) TMI 510 - SUPREME COURT], it is not satisfied that this is a case where the Petitioner should be relegated to the alternate remedy, as we find the order being flawed on both grounds, firstly, on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice, and secondly, the order is delivered belatedly. Petition allowed. The petition challenges a CESTAT final order forwarded with the notation: 'I am directed to transmit herewith a certified copy of order passed by the Tribunal under section 129-A(4) of the Customs Act, 1962.' The CESTAT order dated 19.12.2022 was apparently pronounced only on 28.08.2024, a belated delivery not disputed by the Authority. The High Court, noting 'a huge delay in passing of the order by the CESTAT,' quashed the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, directing the Tribunal to reconsider all points and arguments and to decide forthwith. The Court refused to confine the petitioner to an alternate remedy, relying on Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, and found the CESTAT order flawed both for 'violation of principles of natural justice' and because it was 'delivered belatedly.' The writ petition was allowed on those grounds.