Tribunal grants stay, waives pre-deposit, and schedules early hearing. Commissioner's non-compliance raises due process concerns.

The Tribunal granted unconditional stay due to the delay in issuing the order, waived the pre-deposit of dues considering the appellant's financial hardship, and scheduled an early final hearing due to the prolonged delay and lack of urgency in concluding proceedings. The Commissioner's non-compliance with specific directions of the Tribunal, including failure to allow cross-examination and provide necessary documents, raised concerns about due process and the appellant's right to a fair hearing. The significant delay in issuing the impugned order, spanning over a decade, was deemed unjustifiable, especially considering the financial hardship faced by the appellant.

---

---

Issues:
1. Clubbing of clearances for demanding duty.
2. Non-compliance with specific directions of the Tribunal.
3. Delay in issuing the impugned order.
4. Financial hardship of the appellant.
5. Waiver of pre-deposit of dues.

Clubbing of Clearances for Demanding Duty:
The issue revolves around whether clearances made by two entities, The Empire Safe Co. owned by Shri Bhupinder Singh Bhatia and M/s. Empire Safe Co. owned by Smt. Jagbinder Kaur Bhatia, should be clubbed for duty demand purposes. Previous appeals were remanded by the Tribunal due to specific directions not being met by the adjudicating authority. The Commissioner's order, issued after a significant delay, lacked original relied-upon documents and failed to comply with the Tribunal's instructions. The Tribunal noted the lack of urgency in concluding proceedings and granted unconditional stay due to the delay. Considering the financial hardship and the long delay, pre-deposit of dues was waived, and the appeal was scheduled for an early final hearing.

Non-Compliance with Specific Directions of the Tribunal:
The Commissioner failed to meet the Tribunal's directions, including allowing cross-examination of a key witness and providing a copy of a statement, citing reasons like loss of documents and unavailability of the witness. Despite attempts to reconstruct the file, the original authority passed the order without fulfilling all requirements. The delay in compliance and the subsequent order raised concerns regarding the due process and the appellant's right to a fair hearing.

Delay in Issuing the Impugned Order:
The Tribunal highlighted a considerable delay in issuing the impugned order, spanning over a decade from the last remand order. The lack of justification for the extended delay raised questions about procedural efficiency and the timely resolution of legal matters. The Tribunal deemed the delay unjustifiable, especially considering the financial implications and the impact on the appellant, a 70-year-old widow facing financial challenges.

Financial Hardship of the Appellant:
The appellant, a financially weak widow pursuing the appeal, faced the prospect of a harsh pre-deposit order. The Tribunal acknowledged the appellant's vulnerable financial position and the potential burden of pre-deposit requirements. Considering the circumstances, the Tribunal opted to waive the pre-deposit of dues to alleviate the financial strain on the appellant.

Waiver of Pre-Deposit of Dues:
In light of the prolonged delay, financial hardship faced by the appellant, and the lack of urgency in concluding proceedings, the Tribunal decided to waive the pre-deposit of dues as per the impugned order. This decision aimed to address the financial challenges of the appellant and ensure a fair opportunity for a timely final hearing. The Tribunal directed an early listing of the appeal for a final hearing to expedite the resolution of the case.

---