MUMBAI: In a rare instance, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence investigating the Rs 29,000 crore coal import scam involving several companies has filed an application before the Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax Tribunal seeking recusal of a member hearing the appeal filed by one of the companies.The application filed last week says that the outcome of the case will be affected if the member C J Mathew continues to be a judge in the matter. The application said , "It is humbly submitted that revenue firmly believes that this will pave the way for an impartial hearing and judgment in the present case." Mathew did not respond to the calls and text messages.In December 2014, DRI had unearthed a scam involving companies inflating the value of coal imports from Indonesia for their power plants thus siphoning money abroad. The modus operandi adopted by the companies is that while coal imports would directly be shipped from Indonesia, the invoices will be routed through an intermediary based either in Hong Kong, Singapore or Dubai. The inflated amount will be sent to the intermediary who, in turn, would remit the actual value to the Indonesian supplier. The overvalued component would be diverted to tax havens, DRI had alleged.The adjudication authority of the DRI had passed an order imposing a penalty of Rs 17.5 core and Rs 1.25 crore on Delhi-based Knowledge Infrastructure and its promoter Rahul Bhandare.In February last, the company went in appeal in the tribunal against this order. DRI said that recusal of a member is not a reflection on the personal ethics, qualifications or abilities of the member. The appeal bench comprises two members.On February 14, on a request of early hearing by the company, DRI informed that appeal copy had not been received by the department and the request was irregular. However, the bench fixed the case for hearing on March 9 though DRI received the appeal details just three days earlier.The statutory period for filing the objections was to end on April 20 but the the bench comprising C J Mathew fixed on April 6 and ordered that no adjournment would be given, the application said. It further says that the bench granted the company adjournment despite a HC order that directed to decide the matter expeditiously. A bench comprising D. N. Panda (Member Judicial) and C. J. Mathew(Member Technical), heard the matter. On December 11, three days before his retirement, Panda, prepared the draft copy of the order and referred it to Mathew for 'his perusal and finalisation'. Mathew didn't finalise it saying he was tied up other pending litigations and hence 'impracticable to finalise the draft. Therefore, the draft may be kept in sealed cover and the file placed before the president of the tribunal for appropriate order, Mathew said.The application said, " C. J. Mathew perused the draft order. He however, chose not to either finalise the order or record a difference of opinion. In the result, the Order was not issued at all. Hon’ble Shri C. J. Mathew (Member Technical) had an opportunity to finalise the Order but he did not act on it.The matter was relisted for hearing before another which also had Mathew as a member. The application cites various instances where the company’s requests for adjournments were considered but the department’s requests were not entertained. It also points out how a request for a change in the constitution of the members was dismissed by the tribunal here though the president of the tribunal was to decide.The appeal by the company and a final order on recusal of Mathew is yet to be decided.