' It is stated that a number of identical petitions were heard by .The learned Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal on 8-11-2002 and were disposed of through their judgment dated 22- 1-2002. The appellant complains that his appeal was not listed alongwith Appeal No,297/LB of 2001 decided by the Tribunal alongwith many others. However, even then the Tribunal disposed of his appeal with the following observations contained in para.12 of the impugned order:-- "In view of the above, the appeal in hand is dismissed alongwith all the appeals previously pending before Lahore Bench-I and Lahore Bench-II in which orders for outright confiscation of the goods had been passed by the Adjudicating Officers without giving the appellants an option to redeem them on the payment of redemption fine in view of the expressed or implied admission of the appellants about their smuggled nature."
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits and we will readily agree that disposal of all those appeals which were neither heard nor were listed for hearing before the Tribunal was not in accordance with law. The learned Tribunal, obviously after having recorded a judgment on a particular issue could very well dispose of identical matters with a reference to that judgment.
However this could only be done after these appeals were listed for hearing and the parties were given an opportunity to be heard. Instead the learned Tribunal adopted a novel way to dispose of those appeals which were still pending decision before different Benches. The disposal of an appeal pending on the file of another Bench or lying with the office in the abovenoted manner has surprised us. Section 194-B of the Customs Act, 1969 expressly provides for giving the parties to an appeal an opportunity of being heard. Therefore, an appeal listed or pending on the file of a Bench cannot be disposed of by another Bench irrespective of its strength or the fact that the Members of that Bench are also the Members of the larger Bench. The disposal of an appeal not listed before a Bench is not warranted by any provision of the Customs Act, 1969 or for that matter by any substantive or procedural law in force in Pakistan. The operative part of the impugned judgment as reproduced above clearly militates against law.
3. Therefore, we will agree that the appeal filed by the present appellant is still pending before the Tribunal to be heard after due fixation and notice to the parties for hearing.