2017 (5) TMI 182 - HC - Central Excise

Court protects petitioners' rights, halts enforcement pending Tribunal decision, ensuring access to justice.

Narmada Bio-Chem Ltd Versus Union of India

The court intervened due to the unavailability of the Division Bench to hear the petitioners' stay application before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax ... Stay application - the Division Bench of the Tribunal which is required to adjudicate the appeal and decide the stay application filed by the petitioners, is not available, the stay application filed by the petitioners is not being heard and decided - It is the case of the petitioners that if the bank guarantee is invoked and the bond is enforced, the stay application filed by the petitioners before the Tribunal would be rendered infructuous - Held that: - in the absence of the Division Bench of the Tribunal, the petitioners for no fault of their own, cannot be rendered remediless. Under the circumstances, the court is of the view that the interests of justice would be served if the petition is disposed of with a direction that till the stay application filed by the petitioners is heard and decided by the Tribunal, the respondents shall not enforce condition No.1 of paragraph-8 of the impugned order - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner. Issues:1. Delay in deciding stay application by Tribunal.2. Coercive measures by respondents to enforce order.3. Remedies available to petitioners in absence of Tribunal.Issue 1: Delay in deciding stay application by TribunalThe petitioners challenged an order before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) and filed a stay application, which remained undecided due to unavailability of the Division Bench. The respondents sought to invoke a bank guarantee and enforce a bond, potentially making the stay application futile. The court acknowledged the unavailability of the Division Bench and held that the petitioners should not be left without a remedy. Consequently, the court directed that the respondents should not enforce a specific condition of the impugned order until the stay application is heard and decided by the Tribunal.Issue 2: Coercive measures by respondents to enforce orderDespite the unavailability of the Division Bench to hear the petitioners' stay application, the respondents were attempting to execute the order challenged before the Tribunal through coercive measures. The court noted that such actions could prejudice the petitioners, who were not at fault for the delay in the Tribunal's proceedings. In light of this, the court decided to intervene to ensure that the petitioners were not unfairly disadvantaged by the enforcement of the order before their stay application was addressed.Issue 3: Remedies available to petitioners in absence of TribunalGiven the circumstances where the Tribunal's Division Bench was unavailable to hear and decide on the petitioners' stay application, the court recognized the need to safeguard the petitioners' interests and access to justice. The court, therefore, concluded that it was essential to provide relief to the petitioners by directing the respondents not to enforce a specific condition of the impugned order until the Tribunal could address the pending stay application. This decision aimed to prevent the petitioners from being left without a remedy or unfairly prejudiced by the enforcement actions of the respondents.This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues of delay in Tribunal proceedings, coercive measures by respondents, and the need to ensure remedies for the petitioners in the absence of a functioning Tribunal Division Bench.