Judgment :- Petitioner seeks the issuance of the Certiorarified Mandamus or any other order or direction, calling for the entire records of the 1st respondent herein dated 27-11-1996, pertaining to Appeal C/2235/90-B2, and Final Order bearing No. C/46/90-B2, and quash the same as illegal and also to transfer the records pertaining to the above appeal to the file of 2nd respondent for disposal of the appeal on merits. 2.In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is stated that the petitioner is a Small Scale Industrial Unit, engaged in the production of audio pre-recorded cassettes by recording programmes in all South Indian languages, Sanskrit and also in classical, both vocal and instrumental. For the said purpose, the petitioner wanted to install a captive studio with the aid of their own system. For the said purpose, some equipments which are not available indigenously, had to be imported, and also registration was sought for, for project contract, and all documents necessary for registration have been submitted. It is seen that request so made was rejected by the 3rd respondent, on the ground that sound mixing and its transfer on to a blank cassette were not manufactured resulting in a commodity as required by the definition of the Industrial Plant. Finally the equipments have been imported and bonded under Section 59 of the Customs Act, 1962. 3.Aggrieved by the order of Additional Commissioner of Customs, an appeal was filed by the petitioner before the Commissioner of Customs. The same was allowed. Against that order, the authority filed an appeal before the 1st respondent herein, and the same was numbered as C/2235/90-B2. The appeal was filed in New Delhi. The notice of the same was served on the petitioner, and while the appeal was pending, the rules were amended, by constituting Benches in various places. The amendment was notified on 31-5-1995. As per the amendment, by constituting Appellate Tribunals, the importer or the exporter can request before that Tribunal for transfer of the case to be dealt with by the Bench, in which he is doing business. 4.The petitioner received the notice from 1st respondent Tribunal at New Delhi, that the appeal is fixed for hearing on 26-11-1996. Long before the due date for hearing, a request was made by the petitioner in writing, that the case may be sent for hearing to the Madras Bench. 4.The petitioner received the notice from 1st respondent Tribunal at New Delhi, that the appeal is fixed for hearing on 26-11-1996. Long before the due date for hearing, a request was made by the petitioner in writing, that the case may be sent for hearing to the Madras Bench. The same was also received by the Tribunal at New Delhi on 15-11-1996. But without taking note of that request, the 1st respondent herein disposed of the appeal, by allowing the same. 5.Naturally, when a request was made before the Tribunal to transfer the appeal to Madras Bench, none would have represented before the Tribunal for the petitioner. But the appeal was allowed and the petitioner was informed that some payment will have to be made consequent on the appeal being allowed. It is at this stage, the present writ petition has been filed to quash the order of the 1st respondent and to direct the 1st respondent to restore the appeal and transfer the same to Madras Bench. 6.A detailed counter affidavit has also been filed by the Standing Counsel for the respondents. In the counter affidavit it is stated that an application should have been filed for transfer, and at any rate, the appeal was pending from 1990 to 1995, and during the period viz. immediately after the notification no action was taken by the petitioner to have the appeal transferred to Madras Bench. 7.Heard the argument of both Counsels. 8.The only point that requires consideration is whether the impugned order is liable to be set aside, on the ground that it violates the Principles of Natural Justice. 9.At the time when the appeal was taken up for hearing by the Tribunal, admittedly the Benches were constituted, and a right was given to the importer and exporter to have the pending appeal transferred to the Bench, where they are doing business. If such a request is made, the rules provided that the Tribunal is bound to transfer the same to the Bench. In this case, admittedly a request was made on 15-11-1996. On going by the wording of the notification, even an oral request is sufficient and no written application is necessary. In this case, the petitioner has sent a written request for transferring the case to Madras Bench, and the 1st respondent has also received the same, sufficiently early. In this case, admittedly a request was made on 15-11-1996. On going by the wording of the notification, even an oral request is sufficient and no written application is necessary. In this case, the petitioner has sent a written request for transferring the case to Madras Bench, and the 1st respondent has also received the same, sufficiently early. When the petitioner was given the right to have his appeal transferred to Madras Bench, where he is doing business, and in fact he had made such a request, he was justified in absenting himself, when the matter was being heard by the Tribunal in New Delhi. When there is statutory duty on the part of the Tribunal to transfer the case, disposing of the same on merits, without hearing the petitioner is not proper. It violated the principles of Natural Justice. 10.Therefore, I set aside the impugned order, and the Appeal No. C/2235/90-B2, before the 1st Respondent is directed to be restored and transferred to the Madras Bench, the 2nd respondent herein, without any further delay. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. Consequently, no order is necessary in the W.M.Ps. 11.On receipt of the copy of this order, the 1st respondent shall inform the petitioner, as to when the matter is transferred to the Madras Bench, i.e., the 2nd respondent herein, and the 2nd respondent, in turn shall inform the petitioner, the date of hearing.