2016 (4) TMI 149 - HC - Central Excise

Early hearing applications - Held that - Tribunal is justified in rejecting the applications for early hearing. Even though the order passed by the Tribunal dismissing the applications filed by the appellant, for the early hearing of the appeals, is cryptic in nature, it cannot be said that the appellants could be really aggrieved by the said order. In such circumstances, we find that there is no merit in the present appeals filed by the appellants. Hence, the appeals stand dismissed.

Issues:
1. Appeal against rejection of early hearing application by Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal.
2. Appellant engaged in job work for automobile components, filed appeal against demand of central excise duties, penalties, and for waiver of pre-deposit.
3. Substantial questions of law raised regarding rejection of early hearing applications without reasons.
4. Allegation of Tribunal passing cryptic and non-speaking order, failure to follow procedural rules.
5. Failure to consider instructions for early hearing applications as per CESTAT guidelines.
6. Court's analysis of whether substantial questions of law arose for consideration.

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed Civil Miscellaneous Appeals against the rejection of early hearing applications by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal related to demands of central excise duties and penalties imposed. The Tribunal had granted waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery but dismissed the early hearing petitions, prompting the appellant to approach the High Court.

2. The appellant, engaged in job work for automobile components, challenged the demand of central excise duties and penalties imposed by the Commissioner of Central Excise. The appellant sought waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery during the appeal process. The Tribunal granted these reliefs but rejected the early hearing applications, leading to the present appeals before the High Court.

3. The appellant raised substantial questions of law regarding the rejection of early hearing applications without providing reasons. The appellant argued that the Tribunal's order was cryptic and failed to comply with procedural rules, specifically Rule 28C of the Central Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982.

4. The appellant contended that the Tribunal disregarded the instructions outlined in CESTAT guidelines dated 21.2.1986 regarding the circumstances for filing early hearing applications. Despite meeting the conditions specified in the guidelines, the appellant's applications for early hearing were dismissed by the Tribunal, leading to the legal challenge before the High Court.

5. Upon hearing the arguments presented by both parties, the Court examined the records and found no substantial questions of law warranting consideration in the present appeals. The Court held that the CESTAT guidelines from 1986 did not create enforceable rights for the appellant to challenge the Tribunal's order rejecting the early hearing applications. Despite the cryptic nature of the Tribunal's order, the Court determined that the appellant was not genuinely aggrieved by it, resulting in the dismissal of the appeals.

6. In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the appellants, emphasizing that there was no merit in challenging the Tribunal's decision to reject the early hearing applications. The Court also ruled that the appellants were not entitled to costs in this matter.

← Previous Next →