Page 114 - ELT_1st July 2020_Vol 373_Part 1

24 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373

11. Likewise, in case of Northern Plastics Ltd. (Now merged with Consoli-
dated Photo and Finvest Ltd.) v. Collector of Customs and Central Excise reported in
AIR 1999 SC 3643 = 1999 (113) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) the facts were that a batch of jumbo
rolls of photographic colour films were imported by the petitioner in January,
1989 by filing bill of entries for clearance of goods. Such goods were not cleared
by the Customs authorities since they had doubt about the correct classification.
During the pendency of such proceedings, the goods were sold for ` 48 lakhs
since they were highly perishable in nature and had to be stored in an air-
conditioned place. The confiscation order was eventually set aside. It was in such
background, the Supreme Court ordered that the department should pay the
whole value of the goods and not just the price fetched during the auction. Again
the facts of the said case are different. In the present case, during the pendency of
the proceedings before the order of confiscation of the goods were set aside by
the CESTAT and issues were redecided by the adjudicating authority, the drugs
had expired and, therefore, destroyed.
12. In the result, petition is dismissed.
13. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
_______
2020 (373) E.L.T. 24 (Ker.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Amit Rawal, J.
KISHIN S. LOUNGANI
Versus
UNION OF INDIA

W.P. (C) No. 6312 of 2020 (L), decided on 3-3-2020
Appeal to CESTAT - Bias - Apprehension of Bias by Members (Tech-
nical) - Constitution of new Bench - Petitioner’s apprehension of Bias is well-
founded in view of fact that present touring Member (Technical) of Bengaluru
Bench Shri Bijay Kumar was a party in writ proceedings filed by petitioner’s
counsel in Apex Court against appointment of Members (Technical) - Law of
equity and interest of justice demand that matter be heard by a Bench consist-
ing of some other Member (T), to which UOI has no objection - Accordingly,
directed that a different touring Member (Technical), other than members Shri
C.I. Mahar, Sanjeev Sreevastava and Sri P. Venkata Subba Roa who were party
to aforesaid writ proceedings, be assigned for hearing matter before Bengaluru
CESTAT Bench - Section 129A of Customs Act, 1962 - Article 226 of Constitu-
tion of India. [paras 8, 9]
Appeal to CESTAT - Transfer from one Bench to another - Powers of
High Court - No power with High Court to order transfer of a case from Benga-
lure Bench to Mumbai Bench - Plea withdrawn by petitioner for filing appro-
priate application before CESTAT - Section 129C(6) of Customs Act, 1962 -
Article 226 of Constitution of India. [para 7]
Petition partly allowed
REPRESENTED BY : Shri P.A. Augustian, Advocate, for the Petitioner.
Shri Rajesh B, SC, for the Respondent.

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st July 2020  114