M/S Bengal Hammer Industries PVT LTD vs. Commissioner Of Central Tax Howrah CGST And Cx Commissionerate

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Bengal Hammer Industries Pvt. Ltd., filed a revisional application before the High Court challenging an order dated March 19, 2024, passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Eastern Zonal Bench, Kolkata. The CESTAT had rejected the petitioner's prayer for an expeditious hearing of their excise appeal, which had been pending since 2021. The petitioner argued that despite the appeal being filed in 2021, it had not been heard for five years. The respondent, The Commissioner of Central Tax Howrah CGST And CX Commissionerate, did not supply a name for representation.

Held

The High Court set aside the impugned order dated March 19, 2024, passed by the CESTAT. The Court found that the appeal had been pending for an unreasonably long period of five years since 2021 without being heard. The Court reasoned that such a delay is unacceptable and defeats the purpose of having an appellate tribunal for timely dispute resolution. Therefore, the Court directed the CESTAT to make all endeavors to dispose of the excise appeal expeditiously, preferably within three months from the date of communication of the High Court's order. The revisional application was disposed of with this direction.

Key Issues

1. Whether the CESTAT was justified in rejecting the petitioner's prayer for an expeditious hearing of their excise appeal, thereby causing undue delay in the disposal of the matter, contrary to principles of natural justice and the need for timely resolution of tax disputes? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner contended that their excise appeal has been pending before the Tribunal since 2021, a period of five years, without being heard. This inordinate delay is causing prejudice and hardship, necessitating judicial intervention to direct an expeditious hearing. They relied on the general principle that litigation should be disposed of promptly. Revenue's Argument: The judgment records that no name was supplied for the respondent, indicating no arguments were presented on behalf of the revenue.