2017 (8) TMI 356 - AT - Service Tax

Application for Early hearing of appeal - case of appellant is that pendency of the appeal shall cause extreme hardship to the appellant and interest cost will be very heavy in the event the appellant is not successful before the Tribunal - Held that - Early justice is the right of the litigant and expeditious delivery of justice is the olive branch of the constitution. Unless justice is delivered expeditiously, litigant s confidence on law is shacked. This principle guides for expeditious disposal of litigation - early hearing allowed in the interest of justice - decided in favor of applicant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of Cenvat Credit by the adjudicating authority.
2. Appellant's claim for Cenvat Credit based on Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004.
3. Appellant's contention for early hearing citing precedents and potential hardship.
4. Revenue's opposition to early hearing due to pending appeals.
5. The principle of expeditious delivery of justice and the need for a policy for early hearings.
6. Guidelines for early hearing requests and situations justifying early hearing.

Analysis:

1. The adjudicating authority disallowed Cenvat Credit to the appellant, leading to a tax demand of ?2,40,33,581 along with interest and penalty. The appellant argues that the construction of an edifice using taxable inputs and input services entitles them to the credit under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004.

2. The appellant relies on decisions in similar cases to support their claim for Cenvat Credit. Citing cases like Cocacola India Pvt. Ltd and Liugong Indian Pvt. Ltd, the appellant asserts that the pending appeal causing extreme hardship and heavy interest costs if unsuccessful before the Tribunal.

3. The Revenue opposes the early hearing application, highlighting the burden on the Tribunal due to numerous pending appeals involving substantial amounts. This stance raises concerns about the impact of allowing early hearings on the overall disposal of appeals.

4. The judgment emphasizes the importance of early justice delivery to maintain litigants' confidence in the legal system. It suggests the need for a policy to discern cases for early hearings, ensuring expeditious disposal of litigation to uphold the principles of justice.

5. Referring to Circular NO. CESTAT F. No.974/PR (CEGAT)/86, the judgment outlines guidelines for considering early hearing requests. The circular lists situations justifying early hearings, including cases involving perishable goods, disproportionate fines, settled legal issues, high financial stakes, and recurring duty liabilities.

6. The Tribunal directs the registry to present the matter before the Hon'ble President to address the issue and potentially develop a policy regarding the consideration of early hearing applications in the interest of justice. This step aims to ensure a systematic approach to handling requests for early hearings while maintaining a balance with the existing caseload.

This detailed analysis of the judgment covers the issues related to Cenvat Credit disallowance, early hearing application, legal precedents, Tribunal's workload, principles of justice delivery, and guidelines for early hearing requests, providing a comprehensive understanding of the case.