2021 (2) TMI 1130 - AT - Central Excise

Waiver of pre-deposit - Application for early hearing - Can there be any ground for early hearing to be granted when the appellants/counsel for appellants, have them sought adjournment to the hearing of application for early hearing for more than six months? - HELD THAT - It is quite evident that the appellants/counsel for the appellants are only seeking adjournments to avoid the hearing on this application for early hearing. Country is facing the pandemic situation on account of COVID-19, and the tribunal is hearing the matter in virtual mode, whereby the counsel has not even to travel upto the premises of this tribunal for hearing in the matter and can attend the hearing from the comfort of her residence/office. Also we find that Annexure 1 (prescribing PROCEDURE FOR E-HEARING OF APPEALS BY CESTAT) to Public Notice No 02 of 2020 Regarding E-Hearing Dated 10.08.2020 issued by the Registrar CESTAT - The casual approach on the part of appellant/appellant s counsel in attending the hearing in virtual mode in the present case is quite apparent, and the adjournment of nearly six months sought upto now itself goes contrary to the request for early hearing of the appeal. There are no merits in the application made as the same is not supported by any documents of financial hardship etc. Further how can there be any financial hardship in view of the provisions of Section 35F - the application for early hearing is dismissed - the appeal should be listed in normal course.

Summary

Issues:
1. Application for early hearing of appeal.
2. Request for adjournment by the appellants.
3. Consideration of pandemic situation and virtual mode of hearing.
4. Comparison with a Supreme Court judgment regarding adjournment.
5. Lack of merit in the application due to absence of supporting documents.
6. Dismissal of the application for early hearing.

Analysis:
1. The appellants, a 100% EOU engaged in manufacturing, filed an application for early hearing of their appeal due to the Department's demand for Central Excise Duty and Customs Duty, along with penalties. The appeal challenged the Order-In-Original confirming Central Excise Duty, interest, and penalty. The appellants cited severe hardship and loss due to the order and requested an early hearing for justice.

2. The appellants initially sought an early hearing but subsequently requested adjournments, delaying the process. Despite the pandemic situation and the availability of virtual hearings, multiple adjournment requests were made without valid reasons, leading to a six-month delay. The tribunal highlighted the inconsistency between seeking early hearing and continuously requesting adjournments.

3. The tribunal emphasized the guidelines for e-hearings and the lack of grounds for adjournment, especially when parties can attend virtually without travel. The comparison with a Supreme Court judgment highlighted the importance of not granting adjournments without valid reasons, as it may lead to dismissal for non-prosecution.

4. The tribunal found no merit in the application for early hearing as it lacked supporting documents for financial hardship. Additionally, the provisions of Section 35F raised questions about the claimed financial hardship. The dismissal of the application was based on the lack of substantive grounds and documentation supporting the request for early hearing.

5. In conclusion, the tribunal dismissed the application for early hearing and directed the appeal to be listed in the normal course. The decision was made considering the inconsistent behavior of the appellants in seeking adjournments despite requesting an early hearing initially. The judgment highlighted the importance of adhering to procedural guidelines and providing valid reasons for adjournment requests.