2014 (11) TMI 449 - HC - Customs

Court emphasizes timely appeal hearing, considering financial hardship. Balance efficiency with fairness.

M/s. Hine Hydraulics India Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of Customs (Sea Imports)

M/s. Hine Hydraulics India Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of Customs (Sea Imports) - 2015 (315) E.L.T. 31 (Mad.) , 2017 (51) S.T.R. 487 (Mad.) Issues:Challenge to miscellaneous orders passed by the Tribunal; Rejection of request for early hearing of appeals; Financial hardship faced by the appellant; Denial of benefit of Notification No.12/2012-CE; Requirement of bank guarantee by the Assessing Officer; Heavy pendency in Tribunals affecting effective functioning.Analysis:The judgment pertains to the challenge against miscellaneous orders passed by the Tribunal, specifically addressing the rejection of the appellant's request for early hearing of appeals. The appellant, an importer of parts of wind-operated electricity generators, faced a situation where the department denied the benefit of Notification No.12/2012-CE for the imports made by the assessee. Despite the appellate authority setting aside the original order and ruling in favor of the assessee, the Assessing Officer demanded a bank guarantee of 25% of the differential duty on imports, citing the department's appeal before the Tribunal. This demand created financial hardship for the appellant, leading to a request for early hearing before the Tribunal.Upon hearing arguments from both parties, the Court acknowledged the heavy stress on Tribunals due to pending cases but recognized the undue burden imposed on the appellant by the original authority's insistence on the bank guarantee. The Court highlighted that the appellant had a favorable order from the Commissioner (Appeals) and deemed it unjustified for the original authority to demand the bank guarantee unless the Tribunal reversed the decision. Consequently, the Court refrained from setting a time limit for the Tribunal to hear the appeal but requested the Tribunal to consider granting early hearing within three months to address the financial hardship faced by the appellant.In conclusion, the appeals were disposed of with the observation that the Tribunal should consider early hearing, emphasizing the need to balance the effective functioning of the Tribunal with the appellant's financial situation. This judgment underscores the importance of considering the circumstances of the parties involved while ensuring the fair and efficient administration of justice in light of heavy caseloads in the Tribunal system.