9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (3) TMI 397 - AT - Central ExciseApplication of permission for recasting of RG23A Part II and PLA - Since the concerned D.R. was on leave on that day, the adjournment request made by the proxy D.R. which was considered and the matter was adjourned to 20th January 2011 - It is the collective duty of the DRs, Advocates and the Bench to dispose the cases as early as possible particularly in this Tribunal where the Govt s revenue is on stake - Registry is directed to send copy of this order to the Chairman, CBEC, Member (L&J), CDR and JCDR (Administration), Mumbai for necessary action
Issues:
Appeal against denial of permission for recasting of RG23A Part II and PLA. Analysis: The appellant appealed against the impugned order denying permission for recasting of RG23A Part II and PLA. During the final hearing, the appellant's Advocate argued that their case was similar to a previous decision by the Tribunal in another case. However, due to the concerned D.R. being on leave, the matter was adjourned to a later date. On the subsequent hearing date, the same issue arose as the concerned D.R. was again on leave, leading to the adjournment of all cases listed before the Bench. The presiding Judge expressed disappointment at the non-availability of D.R.s, emphasizing the importance of timely case disposal given the government's revenue at stake. The Judge directed the Court Master to adjourn cases as per counsels' convenience and scheduled the matter for final hearing on a later date. Additionally, the Registry was instructed to send a copy of the order to relevant authorities for necessary action. This judgment highlights the challenges faced due to the unavailability of D.R.s impacting the timely disposal of cases. The Judge emphasized the importance of efficiently handling cases, particularly in a tribunal where government revenue is at stake. The directive to adjourn cases based on counsels' convenience and the subsequent scheduling of the matter for a later date reflects the court's commitment to ensuring fair and orderly proceedings. The communication of the order to higher authorities underscores the seriousness with which the issue of case delays was addressed, seeking necessary actions to prevent future occurrences.
|
