2012 (10) TMI 1031 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
The issues involved in the judgment are the conditional waiver of pre-deposit order by the Tribunal, the appellant's request for adjournment due to counsel's illness, and the subsequent vacation of the interim order by the Tribunal.

Conditional Waiver of Pre-deposit Order:
The appellant raised the question of law regarding the Tribunal's error in vacating the previous conditional waiver of pre-deposit order. The Tribunal had initially granted partial relief to the appellant in the form of conditional pre-deposit of &8377; 29,00,000/- and waiver of the balance amount. However, prior to the final hearing date, the appellant's counsel fell ill and requested an adjournment, which was rejected by the Tribunal. The Tribunal justified its decision by stating that the appellant had no right to seek adjournment in such a situation, citing relevant judgments. Despite the appellant's awareness of the hearing date, the Tribunal vacated the stay order and directed the appellant to make the deposit of the rest of the duty demand within eight weeks. The High Court found the Tribunal's order to be extremely prejudicial and harsh, especially considering the circumstances of the counsel's illness and lack of persistent default or adjournment requests by the appellant. Consequently, the High Court set aside the Tribunal's order and allowed the appeal with no costs imposed.

Adjournment Request Due to Counsel's Illness:
The appellant's counsel fell ill a few days before the final hearing date, leading to a request for adjournment. Despite the reasonableness of the request and the lack of persistent default or adjournment history by the appellant, the Tribunal rejected the application and vacated the interim order. The High Court considered the circumstances and concluded that the Tribunal's decision to vacate the stay and demand immediate payment of the duty was harsh and oppressive. The High Court, therefore, set aside the Tribunal's order and allowed the appeal without imposing any costs on the appellant.

Vacation of Interim Order by Tribunal:
The Tribunal, upon receiving the adjournment request due to the counsel's illness, deemed it an abuse of process of law and vacated the stay order granted earlier. The Tribunal directed the appellant to make the deposit of the remaining duty demand within eight weeks to protect the revenue's interest. The High Court, after reviewing the facts and the Tribunal's reasoning, found the vacation of the stay order and immediate payment demand to be unjust and oppressive. As a result, the High Court set aside the Tribunal's order and allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the appellant without imposing any costs.