2008 (2) TMI 362 - AT - Central Excise

Revenue seeking adjournments - Revenue not taking interest in seriously pursuing these appeals - Several times, this Bench has requested the Commissioners and CDR to send other officers who are in Delhi to assist the Bench but, they have not shown any response - Revenue Secretary is directed to look into this matter and give direction to the CDR to send enough DRs to this Bench for carrying on the day to day work - Since the Revenue is handicapped in arguing these matters, case is adjourned

Summary

Issues:
1. Continual adjournments sought by the Revenue in multiple cases.
2. Alleged lack of interest by the Revenue in pursuing appeals.
3. Request for remand by the appellant regarding excisability of an intermediate product.

Analysis:
1. The judgment addresses the issue of the Revenue seeking repeated adjournments in the cases of M/s. Apollo Tyres Limited, M/s. MRF Ltd., and J.K. Industries Ltd. Despite the appellants being ready for hearings, the Revenue requested adjournments multiple times, causing hardship to the appellants. The Senior Counsel representing the appellants highlighted the delays caused by the Revenue and requested for the matter to be heard without further adjournments.

2. The judgment also discusses the perceived lack of interest by the Revenue in actively pursuing the appeals before the Bench. The Tribunal expressed regret over the Revenue's lack of serious engagement in the cases, despite the high revenue involved. The Tribunal directed the Assistant Registrar to inform the Chairman of the CBEC and the Revenue Secretary about the issue, urging them to ensure sufficient support from Revenue officers to facilitate the smooth functioning of the Bench.

3. Additionally, the judgment delves into the appellant's request for remand concerning the excisability of an intermediate product used in the manufacture of 'Animal Drawn Vehicle (ADV) Tyres'. The appellant contended that the intermediate product, Dipped Nylon Tyre Cord Fabric, was not marketable and excisable. The Senior Counsel sought to establish the non-marketability of the product before the Original Authority and requested an extension of the remand scope for further consideration. The Tribunal acknowledged the appellant's plea and decided to adjourn the matter to allow for a comprehensive review without additional adjournments.

In conclusion, the judgment highlights the issues of repeated adjournments sought by the Revenue, the perceived lack of interest in pursuing appeals, and the appellant's request for remand regarding the excisability of an intermediate product. The Tribunal emphasized the need for efficient proceedings and directed for the matters to be heard without further delays, ensuring a fair and thorough examination of the relevant issues.