- (1.) Let affidavit of service filed in Court by the learned advocate for the respondent be kept on record. Heard Mr. Tanmoy Chakraborty, learned advocate for the appellant and Mr. Saraf, learned advocate for the respondent. The appeal is admitted on the following substantial question of law: "Whether the delay of more than six months in passing the order impugned dated 11th May, 2015 by the CESTAT after conclusion of hearing on 29th October, 2014 renders the order non est and unsustainable in view of the CESTAT Order No.4 of 2009 dated 17th July, 2009, which stipulates that if no order is delivered and pronounced within six months after conclusion of hearing it shall be deemed to have not been heard and will have to be listed for fresh hearing only after obtaining prior order in that regard from the Hon'ble President of the CESTAT."
(2.) Since necessary documents are on record, by consent of Mr. Chakraborty and Mr. Saraf the appeal is treated as on day's list and is taken up for hearing.
(3.) It is submitted by Mr. Bhattacharyya that since the CESTAT Order No.4 of 2009 was framed pursuant to the directions passed by the Supreme Court in Anil Rai vs. State of Bihar,2009 233 CLT 13SC and as admittedly hearing of the matter was concluded on 29th October, 2014 by CESTAT and the impugned judgement was delivered on 11th May, 2015, that is after more than six months, which was in breach of the time limit prescribed for delivering judgments in said CESTAT Order, impugned order under challenge may be set aside and appropriate order may be passed directing the Hon'ble President of the CESTAT to refer the matter to a Bench for fresh hearing.;