JUDGMENT - DAGA V.C., J.:---This petition is directed against the common order dated 6th May, 2003 passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench, Mumbai, ("CEGAT" for short); whereby the Appeal Nos. C/614 of 1988 and C/500 of 1988 filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed. Considering the ground on which we are disposing of this petition and since we are not touching the merits of the matter, the narration of facts involved in this petition is not necessary.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has made serious complaint while challenging the impugned order and contended that the said order has been passed by the CEGAT after more than two years from the date of hearing of the appeal. It is not in dispute that the appeals filed by the petitioner were heard on 19th April, 2001 and the appeals were closed for orders and reserved for judgment. The order came to be passed on 6th May, 2003. The same was communicated to the petitioner on 13th June, 2003.

3. According to the petitioner, the passage of time of almost more than two years has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner inasmuch as the CEGAT has forgotten to consider, discuss, examine and deal with various relevant contentions which were actually raised in appeals and argued by the Counsel appearing for the petitioner before CEGAT. The petitioner submits that apart from relevant facts the CEGAT has also completely ignored and overlooked its own earlier orders though cited; wherein on the same set of facts, allegations and evidences the CEGAT had upheld the plea of breach of principles of natural justice and set aside the orders passed by the same Collector of Customs. It is alleged that copies of the said two earlier orders of the CEGAT passed in petitioners own case being orders dated 24th January, 2000 and 1st June, 2000 (Exh. A and B) were brought to the notice of the CEGAT, which CEGAT omitted to consider in the impugned order.

4. There is no counter affidavit on behalf of the revenue to controvert the above allegations made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Having examined the impugned order passed by the CEGAT, we find much substance in the complaint made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Admittedly, there is no reference by the CEGAT to its earlier orders passed in petitioners own case, on 24th January, 2000 and 1st June, 2000 in spite of the fact that the facts involved therein were more or less similar to the present one.

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also took us through the impugned order passed by the CEGAT and brought our notice that no findings on merits of the case are recorded by the CEGAT which, according to the petitioner, exhibits complete non-application of mind on the part of the CEGAT. In the submission of the petitioner, all this has happened because of delayed delivery of judgment of the part of the CEGAT.

6. The inordinate and unexplained delay in pronouncement of the judgment or order is alleged to have actually negatived the right of appeal conferred by the statute. Any procedure or course of action which does not ensure a reasonable quick adjudication has been termed to be unjust.

7. It has been held time and again that justice should not only be done but should also appear to have been done. Similarly, whereas justice delayed is justice denied, justice withheld is even worse than that. The Apex Court in the case of (Madhav Hayawadanrao Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra)1, 1978(3) S.C.C. 544 had occasion to take serious note of the prejudice normally caused to the litigant due to delayed pronouncement of the judgment for the reasons which are not attributable either to the litigant or to the State or to the legal profession. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has referred to various judgments of various High Courts, reference of which is not necessary, to show that only on the ground of delay in rendering the judgment for a period ranging from six months to 10 months judgments

Click Here to Read the rest of this document