2008 (2) TMI 688 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Adjournments sought by Revenue leading to delay in proceedings.
2. Lack of proper assistance from Revenue to the Tribunal.
3. Grant of stay of recovery and waiver of pre-deposit.

Issue 1: Adjournments sought by Revenue leading to delay in proceedings
The case involved a significant duty amount and a separate penalty. The proceedings started on 10th March, 2006, with directions given to the Revenue not to proceed with the recovery. Despite multiple adjournments requested by the Revenue, the matter was not progressing efficiently. The Tribunal observed that the Revenue had been seeking adjournments for almost two years, causing delays in the case. The Tribunal expressed dissatisfaction with the repeated adjournments and emphasized the need for timely resolution. Eventually, on 27th March, 2008, the Tribunal decided to adjourn the matter for the final time, with a strict instruction that there should be no further adjournments. The stay granted in the case was to continue until the appeals were disposed of.

Issue 2: Lack of proper assistance from Revenue to the Tribunal
The Tribunal noted the lack of proper assistance from the Revenue throughout the proceedings. Despite requests to increase the strength of Departmental Representatives (DRs) to avoid adjournments and ensure smooth functioning of the Tribunal, no significant efforts were made by the Revenue. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of efficient proceedings and expressed displeasure at the continuous requests for adjournments. A Miscellaneous Order was passed, directing the Revenue Secretary and the Chairman of the Central Board of Excise & Customs to address the issue. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a more proactive approach from the Revenue to support the Tribunal's work effectively.

Issue 3: Grant of stay of recovery and waiver of pre-deposit
During the proceedings, a stay of recovery and waiver of pre-deposit were granted in the case. Despite the delays caused by adjournments, the Tribunal ensured that the stay would continue until the appeals were finally disposed of. This decision aimed to prevent the Revenue from proceeding with the recovery of the amount in question until a final resolution was reached. The Tribunal reiterated this directive along with the final adjournment date, emphasizing the importance of maintaining the stay until the appeals were fully resolved.

In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the issues surrounding repeated adjournments sought by the Revenue, the lack of proper assistance provided to the Tribunal, and the grant of stay of recovery and waiver of pre-deposit. The Tribunal emphasized the need for timely resolution, efficient proceedings, and proactive support from the Revenue to ensure the smooth functioning of the Tribunal and the delivery of justice.