2010 (5) TMI 423 - AT - Central Excise

Appellant granted stay on recovery of Cenvat Credit & penalty pending appeal, Tribunal addresses delays

The appellant's stay application to halt the recovery of irregular Cenvat Credit and penalty was granted, restraining coercive action by the department ... Penalty - stay of the recovery of an amount and penalty - Availment of irregular Cenvat Credit - Held that: - department also did not take appropriate steps to get the matter listed for hearing - Registry shall also issue notice to the concerned advocate about the hearing of the matter in addition to the notice to the party - Registry shall disclose in the notice that the entire matter including the appeals and stay application will be heard Issues:1. Stay application for recovery of irregular Cenvat Credit2. Appeal filed by department with cross-objections by assessee3. Delay in listing matter for hearing4. Lack of action by department to list matter for hearing5. Direction to bring matter to the notice of Finance Minister and Chairman of the Board6. Adjournment of matters and issuance of fresh notice to assessee7. Disclosure of appearance by advocates for both partiesStay Application for Recovery of Irregular Cenvat Credit:The judgment pertains to a stay application filed by the appellant seeking to halt the recovery of an amount related to irregular Cenvat Credit and penalty. Despite the filing of an appeal and stay application, coercive action was initiated by the department. The order restrained the jurisdictional Commissioner from taking coercive action until the stay application was disposed of.Appeal and Cross-objections:The appeals under consideration relate to the year 2008, with the department filing an appeal and the assessee filing cross-objections. Additionally, a stay application was filed by the assessee, leading to the issuance of a relevant order. The Tribunal records reveal significant disposal of appeals and applications by specific members during the relevant period.Delay in Listing Matter for Hearing:The judgment highlights a delay in listing the matter for hearing, despite the order being pronounced in April 2008 due to the non-availability of a two-member bench. The Registry was directed to explain the delay within a specified timeframe to the President. The matter involved substantial duty demand and penalties, necessitating attention from the Finance Minister and the Chairman of the Board.Lack of Action by Department:It is noted that the department did not take appropriate steps to list the matter for hearing, despite the significant revenue implications involved. The Tribunal directed the Assistant Registrar to forward the order to the Registrar of CESTAT for dissemination to relevant authorities promptly.Direction to Bring Matter to the Notice of Authorities:Given the magnitude of the revenue involved, the Tribunal directed the Registry to notify the Finance Minister, Revenue Secretary, and Chairman of the Board about the matter. This step aimed to draw attention to the significant financial implications of the case.Adjournment and Fresh Notice:The matters were adjourned to a specified date, with the Registry instructed to issue a fresh notice to the assessee, emphasizing that no further adjournments would be granted. The Registry was further directed to notify the concerned advocate about the upcoming hearing date.Disclosure of Appearance by Advocates:The order also disclosed the appearance of advocates for both parties during the proceedings. It was noted that the department was aware of the stay order, and the Registry was directed to ensure that both the party and the concerned advocate were notified about the upcoming hearing where the appeals and stay application would be heard together.