IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.182 of 2006 Commissioner of Customs, Birchand Patel Path, Patna, Dilip Kumar Nath, age 54 years, son of Sri Man Mohan Nath, IV/9 C.R. Colony Ashiyana, Rd. Salimpur Dumra Police Station-Shastri Nagar, District- Patna ---- Respondent/ Appellant. Versus Smt. Sukhbir Kaur D/O Shri Gurjeet Singh, Resident of BRI-103A, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi. --- Appellant --- Respondent. with MA No.183 of 2006 Commissioner of Customs, Birchand Patel Path, Patna, Dilip Kumar Nath Age 54 years, son of Sri Man Mohan Nath IV/9, C.R. Colony Ashiyana Rd. Salimpur Dumra, Patna, Police Station-Sashtrinagar, Dsitrict- Patna. Versus Harbinder Singh, son of Shri Gurjeet Singh, Resident of B.K.I- 103A, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi ---- Appellant---- Respondent --------- 8. 17.11.2009 Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar for the appellant, and Miss Kalpana for the respondent. Both the appeals raise common issues of law and facts and are, therefore, being disposed of by a common order. The two appeals are directed against the common order dated 24.10.2005, passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in Appeal No. C/413-414/04/NB (S), whereby the two appeals have been allowed and the orders passed by the learned first authority and the learned appellate authority have been set aside. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of the appeals may be indicated. The revenue claims to have intercepted a truck on 7.4.2000 at Raxaul wherein a specially made cavity was found to carry goods, and some yellowish powder was found. The same were collected and sent for chemical examination which disclosed that it was oxy-tetracyclene and is a contraband good in India. Proceedings 2 were, therefore, initiated against the two respondents herein the driver and the Khalasi. Learned assessing officer found them guilty as well as the driver and Khalasi to be guilty of using the vehicle for carriage of contraband goods and imposed the penalty of confiscation of the truck as well as small cash penalty. The respondents herein filed separate appeals which were dismissed by the learned first authority. They preferred separate second appeals which have been allowed by the Tribunal by the impugned order, and the orders of the learned appellate authority have been set aside. Hence these appeals at the instance of the Revenue. The substantial questions which arises in the present case are (i) whether or not the impugned order of the Tribunal is a product of abdication of essential duties and functions of the Tribunal. (ii) Whether or not the Tribunal has failed to examine the evidence before it and the issues of facts and law arising in the matter before it, and has committed the error of disposing of the appeals in a most perfunctory manner. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It is evident on the very face of the order that the appeals have been disposed of in a most perfunctory manner and no effort at all has been made to examine the issue of facts and law arising before it. The Tribunal is hereby reminded that it is a forum of facts and is duty-bound to examine the evidence arising in the matter before it. In fact, this is the very justification and Sine Quo Non for the creation of a Tribunal. The duties and functions of this Court in exercise of powers of judicial 3 review are supervisory and narrow. This is a most unsatisfactory way of disposing of matters which are basically and substantially issues of facts in the light of the law governing the issues. Reference may be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore Vrs. Sri Kumar Agencies and others, (2009) 1 S.C.C. 469. Paragraph 6 of the same is reproduced hereinbelow for the facility of quick reference: “6. Since the factual position has not been analyzed in detail, disposal of appeals by mere reference to decisions was not the proper way to deal with the appeals. CEGAT also does not appear to have dealt with the relevance and applicability of ITC case on which strong reliance has been placed by the learned Solicitor General. CEGAT ought to have examined the cases individually and the articles involved. By clubbing all the cases together and without analyzing the special features of each case disposing of the appeals in the manner done was not proper. In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned judgment in each case and remit the matter to CEGAT presently known as the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short “CESTAT”) to be dealt with by the appropriate Bench. In view of the aforesaid order there is no need to answer the reference made.” In the result, the appeals are allowed, the order of the learned tribunal dated 24.10.2005 is hereby set aside. The substantial questions are answered in favour of the Revenue. The matter is remitted to the tribunal for a fresh decision in accordance with law and the observations made hereinabove. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar ,J. ) (Kishore K. Mandal, J.) 4