Respondent removed from Tax Appeal; Court orders expedited decision on Excise Appeal

The interlocutory application seeking the deletion of Respondent No.2 from the Tax Appeal was allowed, permitting the removal of Respondent No.2 from the proceedings. The Tax Appeal, challenging the stay order issued by CESTAT, Kolkata, was not entertained by the Court. However, the Court directed CESTAT to expedite the decision on the Excise Appeal filed by Respondent No.1 within six months. Both parties agreed to cooperate and avoid unnecessary adjournments, leading to the disposal of the Tax Appeal with an emphasis on timely resolution of the Excise Appeal.

---

---

Issues:
1. Interlocutory application for deleting Respondent No.2 from the Tax Appeal.
2. Challenge against the stay order passed by CESTAT, Kolkata.
3. Granting stay without deposition of the amount.
4. Tenability of the Tax Appeal.
5. Direction to CESTAT for early disposal of the Excise Appeal.

Analysis:
1. The interlocutory application sought the deletion of Respondent No.2 from the Tax Appeal, as it was preferred against the stay order issued by CESTAT, Kolkata. The application was allowed, permitting the deletion of Respondent No.2 from the proceedings, with necessary amendments to be made in the memo of the Tax Appeal.

2. The Tax Appeal involved a challenge against the waiver application and stay order issued by CESTAT, Kolkata. The appellant's counsel highlighted various dates of the impugned order and the absence of a deposition order despite the order-in-original by the Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax, Jamshedpur. The respondent's counsel argued for the grant of stay considering undue hardship and questioned the tenability of the Tax Appeal.

3. After hearing both sides and examining the impugned order, the Court found no reason to entertain the Tax Appeal. However, considering the Excise Appeal filed by Respondent No.1 against the order-in-original, the Court directed CESTAT, Kolkata to expedite the decision on Appeal No. E/71365/2013-DB within six months from the date of the order.

4. Both counsels agreed to cooperate and avoid unnecessary adjournments during the proceedings before CESTAT, Kolkata. With these observations, the Court disposed of the Tax Appeal, emphasizing the need for a timely resolution of the Excise Appeal pending before the tribunal.

---