2009 (12) TMI 383 - AT - Central Excise

Stay- department filed miscellaneous application seeking vacation of stay. Stay application disposed of vide order dated 29.12.2006 directing that appeal be taken up for hearing on 29.1.2007. registry not posted appeal for final hearing on 29.1.2007 or on any subsequent dates. Subsequently stay extended vide order dated 16.6.2007. Departmental representative has not brought to notice of the bench about early hearing already ordered. Failure/omission on part of registry to fix the appeal for early hearing as ordered. Departmental representative not followed it up with the registry for fixing the appeal for out of turn hearing as already decided by the bench. Another application for early hearing is infructious.

Summary

Issues: Failure to list appeal for early hearing; Failure to follow up on early hearing order; Extension of stay; Registry's failure to fix appeal for early hearing; Lack of communication between Departmental Representative and Registry.

In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, the issue revolves around the failure to list the appeal for early hearing despite a previous order directing the same. The Department had sought early hearing due to the substantial revenue involved, but the appeal was not fixed for final hearing as ordered. The Registry's failure to schedule the appeal as per the Bench's directions was noted, leading to the extension of the stay granted to the appellant. The Tribunal highlighted the clear failure and omission on the part of the Registry to fix the appeal promptly. Additionally, it was observed that the Departmental Representative did not follow up with the Registry to ensure the appeal was listed for out-of-turn hearing as directed. The judgment emphasizes the importance of timely action and communication between the parties and the Registry to avoid unnecessary delays in the legal process.

Furthermore, the Tribunal directed the Registrar to conduct an inquiry into why the appeal was not listed as per the Bench's directions and instructed the Joint Commissioner of the Department to investigate why the non-fixing of the appeal on the specified date was not brought to the Bench's notice. The judgment underscores the need for effective communication and adherence to procedural requirements to ensure the efficient and timely resolution of legal matters. The miscellaneous application filed by the Department seeking early hearing was ultimately disposed of, and the appeal was fixed for final hearing on a specified date. The judgment highlights the importance of procedural compliance and proactive communication to streamline the legal process and uphold the principles of justice and efficiency in legal proceedings.