Tamil Nadu Tobacco Company Limited Vs. Commr. of C. Ex., Coimbatore - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- orderf.m. ibrahim kalifulla, j. 1. the petitioner in the above two writ petitions is aggrieved inasmuch as, the appeal filed before the customs, excise & gold (control) appellate tribunal, chennai was directed to be sent to the main bench at new delhi along with certain other appeals stated to be pending before the main bench. 2. mr. habibullah badsha, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the rules do not provide for such unilateral action by the second and third respondent in resorting to such shifting of appeals without giving an opportunity. according to the learned counsel enabling the petitioner to file the appeal before the third respondent was on the footing that its registered office is located within the jurisdiction of the third respondent. 3. having heard mr. v.t. gopalan, learned additional solicitor general, i am of the view that since the proceedings of the third respondent dated 17-12-1999, a copy of which is stated to have been forwarded to the petitioner, came to be made without any notice to the petitioner; while setting aside the said proceedings, the third respondent should be directed to hear the petitioner before taking any decision to transfer the appeal filed by the petitioner to be tagged along with certain other appeals, pending before the main bench at new delhi. 4. accordingly, the proceeding, dated 17-12-1999 insofar as the petitioner is concerned, is set aside and the second respondent is hereby directed to hear the petitioner before resorting to the transfer of the appeals preferred by the petitioner before the third respondent, to any other bench including the main bench at new delhi. 5. in the result, the above two writ petitions are disposed of on the above terms. consequently/the connected w.m.ps. are closed.

Judgment:
ORDER

F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.

1. The petitioner in the above two writ petitions is aggrieved inasmuch as, the appeal filed before the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Chennai was directed to be sent to the main Bench at New Delhi along with certain other appeals stated to be pending before the main Bench.

2. Mr. Habibullah Badsha, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the rules do not provide for such unilateral action by the second and third respondent in resorting to such shifting of appeals without giving an opportunity. According to the learned Counsel enabling the petitioner to file the appeal before the third respondent was on the footing that its registered office is located within the jurisdiction of the third respondent.

3. Having heard Mr. V.T. Gopalan, learned Additional Solicitor General, I am of the view that since the proceedings of the third respondent dated 17-12-1999, a copy of which is stated to have been forwarded to the petitioner, came to be made without any notice to the petitioner; while setting aside the said proceedings, the third respondent should be directed to hear the petitioner before taking any decision to transfer the appeal filed by the petitioner to be tagged along with certain other appeals, pending before the main Bench at New Delhi.

4. Accordingly, the proceeding, dated 17-12-1999 insofar as the petitioner is concerned, is set aside and the second respondent is hereby directed to hear the petitioner before resorting to the transfer of the appeals preferred by the petitioner before the third respondent, to any other Bench including the main Bench at New Delhi.

5. In the result, the above two writ petitions are disposed of on the above terms. Consequently/the connected W.M.Ps. are closed.