2017 (8) TMI 790 - AT - Service Tax

Appellant seeks early appeal hearing on disallowed Cenvat Credit.

M/s. Ruchi Malls Pvt. Ltd. Versus. CST, Delhi

The appellant sought early hearing of the appeal concerning disallowance of Cenvat Credit on taxable inputs and input services under Rule 2(l) of the ... Purpose of Early Hearing of appeal - Revenue's contention is that there are huge appeals pending in Tribunal with the demand involving more than the amount stated above. If early hearing application is allowed, Tribunal will be burdened with hearing of appeals of 2017 and past appeals cannot be decided - Circular NO. CESTAT F. No.974/PR (CEGAT)/86, dated 21.02.1986 - Held that: - Early justice is the right of the litigant and expeditious delivery of justice is the olive branch of the constitution. Unless justice is delivered expeditiously, litigant's confidence on law is shacked. This principle guides for expeditious disposal of litigation. It appears that Revenue's argument calls for evolvement of a policy by Hon'ble President for discerning the cases for grant of early hearing - Registry is directed to place the record before the Hon’ble President to hear the issue and evolve poly if any, as he pleases, relating the entertainment of early hearing applications at the interest of justice. Issues:1. Disallowance of Cenvat Credit on taxable inputs and input services.2. Appellant's claim based on Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004.3. Appellant's reliance on previous judgments for relief.4. Revenue's contention regarding pending appeals and burden on the Tribunal.5. Principle of early justice and expeditious delivery of justice.6. Guidelines for early hearing requests issued by the Hon'ble President.Analysis:1. The appellant moved a Miscellaneous application for early hearing of the appeal, arguing that the construction of an edifice using taxable inputs and input services entitles them to Cenvat Credit under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. The adjudicating authority disallowed Cenvat Credit amounting to Rs. 4,68,01,151, leading to tax demand, interest, and penalty.2. The appellant cited decisions in other cases to support their claim, emphasizing that the appeal's pendency would cause extreme hardship and heavy interest costs if not successful before the Tribunal.3. The Revenue contended that allowing early hearing applications would burden the Tribunal, highlighting the significant number of pending appeals with demands exceeding the amount in question.4. The principle of early justice and expeditious delivery of justice was emphasized, stating that timely resolution of disputes is crucial for maintaining confidence in the legal system. The argument called for the evolution of a policy by the Hon'ble President to discern cases for early hearing.5. Referring to Circular NO. CESTAT F. No.974/PR (CEGAT)/86, guidelines for early hearing requests were provided, outlining situations where early hearing might be justified. The Registry was directed to present the matter before the Hon'ble President to address the issue and establish a policy regarding the entertainment of early hearing applications in the interest of justice.