1999 (5) TMI 255 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Consideration of out of turn hearing in the appeal.
2. Determination of whether to defer proceedings until final orders are passed by another Bench.
3. Evaluation of the need for stay of operation during the interim period.

Analysis:
1. The case involved an appeal for out of turn hearing, where similar matters were being heard by the South Regional Bench of the CEGAT. The South Regional Bench had granted out of turn hearing and expressed concern for delays in the case. The Chennai Bench was also involved in making final orders, and both sides were asked for their views on deferring proceedings until the Chennai Bench passed final orders. The appellants agreed to wait, but the Revenue was willing to proceed with the dispute before the present Bench, emphasizing that any stay of proceedings should only be considered if sought by the assessees for modification of an earlier order.

2. The Tribunal considered the duplication of efforts and decided to adjourn the hearing in the present appeals until the orders of the South Regional Bench were available. It was noted that both sides would be free to argue their points, including those not raised before the South Zonal Bench. The Tribunal aimed to save time and resources by awaiting the findings of the South Regional Bench, which had taken steps to ensure speedy disposal of appeals before them.

3. Regarding the stay of operation during the interim period, the Tribunal did not make any orders due to the absence of a revival application. However, it was deemed appropriate for the Commissioner, the successor to the adjudicating officer in the appeals, to wait until the Tribunal's decisions were received. This was due to the complexity of the impugned orders, which directed the Assistant Commissioner to finalize assessment based on various factors. Legal controversies surrounding the Assistant Commissioner's order and stay applications were also discussed, highlighting the need for a cautious approach in continuing with the adjudication process.

In conclusion, the Tribunal adjourned the hearing, allowing both sides to make a mention once the findings of the South Regional Bench were available. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of efficient proceedings and the need for careful consideration in handling the legal controversies surrounding the case.