2014 (11) TMI 449 - HC - Customs

Denial of the benefit of Notification No.12/2012-CE dated 17.3.12 - Application for early hearing of appeal - Held that - Tribunals of all nature throughout the State are under heavy stress due to heavy pendency and, therefore, any direction to the Tribunal for early hearing of any matter would only be detrimental to the effective functioning of the Tribunal and would put more strain on the already overburdened Tribunal. We, therefore, do not think it fit or proper to fix any time limit for the Tribunal to hear the appeal. However, with reference to the case on hand, taking note of the fact that the appellant has a favourable order at the hands of the Commissioner (Appeals) and despite the same, the original authority is insisting on bank guarantee of 25% of the differential duty, which casts a onerous burden on the appellant/assessee, this Court is of the considered view that the said act on the part of the original authority may not be justified unless the order is reversed by the Tribunal in the appeal filed by the Revenue which is pending consideration. Therefore, we only deem it appropriate to request the Tribunal to consider grant of early hearing of the appeals, preferably within a period three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - Appeal disposed of.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to miscellaneous orders passed by the Tribunal; Rejection of request for early hearing of appeals; Financial hardship faced by the appellant; Denial of benefit of Notification No.12/2012-CE; Requirement of bank guarantee by the Assessing Officer; Heavy pendency in Tribunals affecting effective functioning.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to the challenge against miscellaneous orders passed by the Tribunal, specifically addressing the rejection of the appellant's request for early hearing of appeals. The appellant, an importer of parts of wind-operated electricity generators, faced a situation where the department denied the benefit of Notification No.12/2012-CE for the imports made by the assessee. Despite the appellate authority setting aside the original order and ruling in favor of the assessee, the Assessing Officer demanded a bank guarantee of 25% of the differential duty on imports, citing the department's appeal before the Tribunal. This demand created financial hardship for the appellant, leading to a request for early hearing before the Tribunal.

Upon hearing arguments from both parties, the Court acknowledged the heavy stress on Tribunals due to pending cases but recognized the undue burden imposed on the appellant by the original authority's insistence on the bank guarantee. The Court highlighted that the appellant had a favorable order from the Commissioner (Appeals) and deemed it unjustified for the original authority to demand the bank guarantee unless the Tribunal reversed the decision. Consequently, the Court refrained from setting a time limit for the Tribunal to hear the appeal but requested the Tribunal to consider granting early hearing within three months to address the financial hardship faced by the appellant.

In conclusion, the appeals were disposed of with the observation that the Tribunal should consider early hearing, emphasizing the need to balance the effective functioning of the Tribunal with the appellant's financial situation. This judgment underscores the importance of considering the circumstances of the parties involved while ensuring the fair and efficient administration of justice in light of heavy caseloads in the Tribunal system.