2014 (1) TMI 1113 - AT - Central Excise

Application of early hearing Held that - Though the application for stay was filed way back in March, 2012, it could not be listed & heard by the Tribunal for no fault of the Applicant - both sides have agreed that the matter should be heard at the earliest - the stay application has been fixed for hearing, with the consent of both sides - Decided in favour of Assessee.

Summary

Issues: Application for early hearing, waiver of pre-deposit under section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944, recovery proceedings initiated, interim stay granted by Bombay High Court, fixing the hearing of Stay Application.

The judgment pertains to an Application seeking early hearing filed by the Appellant due to recovery proceedings initiated against them in various locations. The Appellant had filed an Appeal against an order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and also applied for waiver of pre-deposit under section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. However, the Tribunal had not heard their application. Subsequently, the Appellant approached the Bombay High Court, which granted interim stay against the recovery proceedings. The matter was then scheduled for hearing before the Tribunal. Both parties agreed for an early hearing, and the Tribunal fixed the hearing of the Stay Application on a specified date. The Tribunal directed the Revenue not to take any coercive action for recovery until the stay application was heard. The Miscellaneous Application was disposed of accordingly.

The key issue addressed in this judgment was the delay in listing and hearing the Stay Application filed by the Appellant. Despite the application being submitted in March 2012, it had not been heard by the Tribunal. The delay was acknowledged, and both parties agreed that the matter should be heard promptly. The Tribunal, considering the directions of the High Court and the consent of both sides, fixed the date for the hearing of the Stay Application. It was emphasized that both parties must be prepared with all necessary documents on the scheduled date. Additionally, the Revenue was instructed not to take any coercive action for recovery until the Tribunal had heard the stay application, ensuring a fair and just process for the Appellant.

The judgment highlighted the importance of timely adjudication of applications and the need for procedural fairness in legal proceedings. It underscored the significance of honoring directions from higher courts, such as the Bombay High Court in this case, and ensuring that parties are given a fair opportunity to present their case. By directing the Revenue not to take coercive action pending the hearing of the stay application, the Tribunal aimed to prevent any undue hardship to the Appellant during the legal process. Overall, the judgment exemplified the principles of procedural justice and the importance of efficient case management in legal matters.