TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (5) TMI 610
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted 5.6.2003 passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai dismissing the petitioners' Appeals Nos.648 to 655 and 676 of 2001 and confirming the Order-in-Original No.15 of 2001 dated 28.2.2001/9.3.2001 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Ahmedabad. By the above Order-in-Original, the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Ahmedabad has ordered to confiscate gold weighing 58.320 Kg. under the provisions of Section 111 (d) of the Customs Act, 1962. The order also imposed penalty of Rs. 50 lakhs on Vijay Dasrathbhai Patel and Shailesh Ratilal Patel, Rs. 50,000/= on Devang Amrutlal Patel and Rs. 5,000/- each on six other petitioners. 3. The main challenge in this petition is that after hearing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd even otherwise such gross delay in deciding the appeals after conclusion of arguments vitiates the order. Another contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is that the impugned order of the Tribunal is not a speaking order as the Tribunal has not given any reason for not accepting the petitioners' contentions and has merely expressed its agreement with the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive). It is submitted that except the last paragraph of the Tribunal's order, all the previous paragraphs merely set out the reasoning and findings contained in the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) and that it is not sufficient for an appellate Tribunal to express its agreement in the last paragraph of its judgm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or otherwise of the transaction under the Customs Act. 5. As regards the delay between hearing of arguments and delivery of the judgment, in RC Sharma vs. Union of India (1976) 3 SCC 574, the Apex Court after noticing that the Civil Procedure Code (prior to amendments made in 1999-2002) did not provide the time limit for completing a judgment, made the following observations: "Nevertheless, we think that an unreasonable delay between hearing of arguments and delivery of a judgment, unless explained by exceptional or extraordinary circumstances, is highly undesirable even when written arguments are submitted. It is not unlikely that some points which the litigant considers important may have escaped notice. But, what is more important is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o frame and lay down the guidelines in the similar lines as are laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Anil Rai vs. State of Bihar (supra) and to issue appropriate administrative directions to all the benches of the CEGAT in the 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." The aforesaid observations were made on 18.8.2003 and reported in 2003 (158) ELT. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the gross delay of 14 months on the part of the Tribunal in deciding the appeals considered along with the fact that the Tribunal's judgment does not even contain a reference to the pe....