https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108799 The Tribunal explained that the proviso to Clause 2-A of Section 35C, referring to disposal of stay-covered appeals within 180 days, did not require priority listing in every case. It exercised judicial discretion to refuse early hearing because earlier-year appeals were already pending and there was no basis to prefer a 2002 appeal over older matters. The Tribunal also applied its established criteria for early hearing, namely that the appeal should be recurring in nature, fully covered by precedent, or involve disputed duty exceeding one crore, and found none satisfied. The miscellaneous application for early hearing was accordingly dismissed. en-us Tue, 07 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 03 Apr 2012 18:48:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108799 The Tribunal explained that the proviso to Clause 2-A of Section 35C, referring to disposal of stay-covered appeals within 180 days, did not require priority listing in every case. It exercised judicial discretion to refuse early hearing because earlier-year appeals were already pending and there was no basis to prefer a 2002 appeal over older matters. The Tribunal also applied its established criteria for early hearing, namely that the appeal should be recurring in nature, fully covered by precedent, or involve disputed duty exceeding one crore, and found none satisfied. The miscellaneous application for early hearing was accordingly dismissed. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 07 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108799