CHALR - Time lines laid down in Regulation 22 are meant to quicken probe and deliver justice - they are to be considered 'directory' in nature since if they are considered 'mandatory' and matter is closed on this basis, purpose of Regulations would get defeated: CESTAT

This order quotes many decisions which are not presumably submitted by either party. The decision that the timelimit given in Regulation is only directory is contrdicting the earlier decision of CESTAT where it was held that delay is fatal. Is it not mandatory for CESTAT bench to follow the earlier decision and to refer the matter to Larger Bench if the earlier decision was not palatable to this Bench? This pick and choose attitude should be curbed. Let there be uniformity in either rendering decisions solely based on the submissions of the litigants alone or let the Honble Members bring in their vast knowledge and suppliment the arguments of the counsels. Either one should prevail and should not be discretionary.

sureshbala sureshbala 26/06/2015