2009 (6) TMI 620 - AT - Central Excise

Adjournment - Merely because the Counsel appearing for the applicant is busy in the other matter at Nashik is no ground for adjournment of the hearing - Hence the application for adjournment is rejected Pre-deposit - It is settled law that such orders cannot be reviewed nor can be modified - Besides the grounds disclosed in the application never be grounds for modification of the order passed in relation to deposit of the amount in order to enable the party to contest the case on merits - In case the party before the Tribunal is aggrieved by any decision of the Tribunal he has remedy elsewhere and not by way of modification of the order - The application is liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed

Summary

Issues: Adjournment request due to counsel's unavailability, application for modification of order regarding pre-deposit, aggrievement over direction of pre-deposit.

Adjournment Request:
The judgment addresses an adjournment request due to the unavailability of the counsel representing the applicant. The counsel was reported to be engaged in another matter at Nashik, leading to the request for adjournment. The tribunal, however, deemed this reason insufficient to grant an adjournment, stating that the mere busyness of the counsel in another matter is not a valid ground for delaying the hearing. Consequently, the application for adjournment was rejected.

Application for Modification of Order Regarding Pre-deposit:
The judgment also discusses an application for the modification of an order concerning the requirement of pre-deposit in the appeal. It clarifies that orders related to pre-deposit are not subject to review or modification under settled law. The grounds presented in the application were deemed insufficient to warrant a modification of the order requiring the deposit of a specific amount to enable the party to contest the case on its merits. The tribunal emphasized that if a party is aggrieved by a tribunal decision, the remedy lies elsewhere and not through a modification of the order. As a result, the application for modification was found to lack merit and was dismissed.

Aggrievement Over Direction of Pre-deposit:
Lastly, the judgment addresses the applicant's aggrievement over the decision requiring a pre-deposit of Rs. 6 lakhs. It clarifies that if a party is dissatisfied with a tribunal decision, avenues for redress exist elsewhere and not through seeking a modification of the order. The tribunal concluded that the applicant had not presented a compelling case for modifying the order dated 20-2-2009 related to the pre-deposit requirement. Consequently, the application was deemed untenable and dismissed.