Page 116 - ELT_1st July 2020_Vol 373_Part 1

26 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373

measures, allowing the Technical Members to continue till such time the Gov-
ernment frames the fresh set of Rules of appointment. It is further submitted that
petitioner has an apprehension that hearing of appeal along with the Technical
Member P. Anjali Kumar for Bangluru Bench need not carry a prejudice.
5. As far as the case of transfer from South Zonal Bench to West Zonal
Bench, it is submitted that the petitioner is a senior citizen and resident of Mum-
bai and there is no regular Bench of two Learned Members available at Banga-
lore. It is in these circumstances, the petitioner is compelled to file the present
writ petition.
6. The Learned Counsel for the respondents, on instructions, informs
the Court there are total eight members and out of the five technical members,
one Mr. Vijaya Kumar, the seventh respondent in the writ petition before the
honourable Supreme Court has retired and there are four Technical Members in
Principal Bench at Mumbai, Allahabad and Hyderabad. He submits that though
he opposes the prayer made by the petitioner on the premise that this Court is
not vested with the jurisdiction to order the transfer of the appeal from South
Zonal Bench to West Zonal Bench but would not be averse in the case of inclu-
sion of Technical Member, as the quorum of the Bangaluru Bench is headed by
one other Technical Member who was not a party in the writ petition before the
Honorable Supreme Court.
7. I have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and appraised the
documents. As far as the relief of the petitioner for transfer of the appeal from
CESTAT at Bangaluru to Mumbai is concerned, the same cannot be accepted by
this Court as this Court do not have any jurisdiction to pass such order. At this
stage, the Learned Counsel submits that he would not press this prayer but
would make an appropriate application to the Appellate Tribunal purportedly
under sub-Section (6) of Section 129(C) of the Customs Act, 1962. In view of the
aforementioned prayer, this Court refrains from adjudicating the first prayer.
8. Now coming in to the second relief, I am of the view that not only
the law of equity but the interest of justice would warrant that any litigant would
expect the hearing of the matter in the most unbiased and impartial manner. It is
a matter of record that touring member (Technical Member of Bengalure) was
the fifth respondent in the writ petition in the Supreme Court which has been
now disposed of pending framing of the Rules, the outcome of the rule is not
disclosed to this Court. But the fact of the matter is, the apprehension expressed
cannot be said to be far-fetched for the reason, the presiding Judicial Member
would not have any objection in case, the quorum for hearing the appeal is of-
fered a different Technical Member than the one assigned as a touring member,
particularly when the Counsel representing the Customs has expressed no objec-
tion.
9. In view of what has been stated above, the writ petition is disposed
of with a direction that the appeal of the petitioner pending before the CESTAT
at Bangaluru shall be heard by Judicial Member and a different touring member
than the one assigned for the Bangaluru also other than C.I. Mahar, Sanjeev
Sreevastava, Sri P. Venkita Suba Rao respondents in the writ petition before Su-
preme Court.
_______

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st July 2020  116