Internal tribunal instructions do not create an enforceable right to early hearing, and brief refusal order was upheld.

Internal instructions in a CESTAT circular did not create a legally enforceable right to demand early hearing. Although the Tribunal's rejection order was brief, the applicants failed to show a substantial question of law or any procedural breach that justified interference. The challenge to the refusal of early hearing therefore failed, and the dismissal of the applications was left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the applications for early hearing without detailed reasons, and whether the internal instructions relied upon by the appellant created an enforceable right to insist on early hearing.

Analysis: The Court held that the instructions issued in the CESTAT circular did not have the force of law so as to confer a legally enforceable right on the appellant to demand early hearing. It also found that, although the order rejecting the applications was brief, the appellants had not demonstrated a substantial question of law warranting interference. The challenge based on the alleged failure to follow the Tribunal procedure rule did not alter the result.

Conclusion: The dismissal of the early hearing applications was not interfered with, and the appeals were held to be without merit.

---