2014 (10) TMI 481 - HC - Central Excise

Restoration of appeal - Whether Tribunal was justified in rejecting the first request for adjournment and deciding the appeal - Held that - appellant should have an opportunity to urge its submission on merits before the Tribunal, subject to the payment of costs to the Revenue - without expressing any opinion on the questions of law as framed, we restore the proceedings back to the Tribunal, subject to the appellant paying costs to the Revenue quantified at ₹ 10,000. The costs shall be paid within a period of four weeks from today, failing which the appellant shall lose the benefit of this order. We clarify that all the rights and contentions are kept open. Appeal disposed of.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of adjournment request by Tribunal
2. Application of extended period of limitation

Analysis:
The appeal in question arose from a decision of the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 29 January 2014. The appellant raised two questions of law regarding the rejection of the first adjournment request by the Tribunal and the application of the extended period of limitation. The appeal was transferred to the Principal Bench of the Tribunal at New Delhi from the Mumbai Bench on 18 June 2012. On the listed date of 29 January 2014, an adjournment was sought but declined by the Tribunal, which then proceeded to dispose of the appeal in the absence of the appellant.

Regarding the rejection of the adjournment request, the High Court found no fault with the Tribunal's decision, considering the appeal was already a decade old. However, the appellant argued that the extended period of limitation should not have been applied, citing previous Tribunal judgments in their favor before a larger Bench decision settled the matter differently. The High Court, in the interest of justice, directed that the appellant should have an opportunity to present its case before the Tribunal, with the condition of paying costs to the Revenue.

The High Court, without expressing an opinion on the questions of law, ordered the proceedings to be restored back to the Tribunal, subject to the appellant paying costs amounting to Rupees Ten Thousand within four weeks. Failure to comply would result in the appellant losing the benefit of this order, with all rights and contentions kept open. The Tribunal was urged to expedite the appeal's disposal, with the appellant agreeing to cooperate and not seek adjournments. The appeal was ultimately disposed of with no order as to costs.