2020 (11) TMI 579 - AT - Central Excise

Application for early hearing of the appeal - application has been filed on the ground that the amount involved in the matter is quite substantial and also recurring in nature - HELD THAT - Since we do not find any NOC available on the file from the earlier counsel, i.e. Shri Lakshmikumaran Sridharan, filed uptil now, we are not in position to hold that this early hearing application has been properly constituted and hence should not be maintainable. The Registry is directed to consider listing the appeal after three weeks on or about 26.11.2020 for final hearing if all the NOCs and other documents are completed before that date - Matter to be listed on 26.11.2020 for completion of records and hearing.

Summary

Issues:
1. Application for early hearing of appeal.
2. Change of defense counsel.
3. Non-availability of NOC from previous counsel.
4. Maintainability of the early hearing application.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI involved an application for early hearing of an appeal. The appellant, represented by Ms. Nisha Bineesh, sought expedited proceedings due to the substantial and recurring nature of the amount involved. However, the Tribunal noted that a similar application by the appellant had been previously rejected. Additionally, the appellant had requested a change of defense counsel from Shri Lakshmikumaran & Sridharan to Nisha Bineesh, but the necessary No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the former counsel was not found on record. Consequently, the Tribunal raised concerns about the proper constitution of the early hearing application and its maintainability.

The Tribunal emphasized the importance of procedural requirements and the need for all necessary documents, including the NOC from the previous counsel, to be in order for the early hearing application to be considered valid. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal directed the Registry to list the appeal for final hearing after three weeks, around 26.11.2020, provided that all required documents, including the NOCs and other relevant records, were completed by that date. This decision aimed to ensure that the appeal proceedings were conducted in a fair and orderly manner, adhering to the prescribed legal procedures.

In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the significance of fulfilling procedural formalities, such as obtaining the NOC from the previous counsel, for applications like early hearing requests to be deemed maintainable. By setting a timeline for the completion of necessary documents, the Tribunal sought to balance the interests of all parties involved while upholding the principles of justice and due process in the adjudication of the appeal.