ORDER
S.L. Peeran, Member (J)
1. In this application, the appellants are seeking early hearing of their appeal.
2. It is the appellant’s case that their’s is a S.S.I. Unit and is not in a position to bear unrealistic and apparently wrong excise due to faulty classification of T.V. Game cartridges as ‘machines’ which it is not. That due to smuggled goods of this kind freely available in the market at cheaper rate, their industry is not in a position to compete with the smuggled goods. This Bench by its order No. 78/91-D dated 14-3-1991, had not agreed for out of turn hearing but had opined that if they so desired, they could move with another application in 1992 if any subsequent development takes place. They now contend that being an SSI unit, they are unable to bear the burden for a prolonged period from 8-7-1991 and that they are likely to shut down its cartridge production.
3. We have heard Shri B.B. Gujral, learned Advocate for the appellants and Shri J.N. Nair, learned DR for the Revenue. Shri Gujral pointed out that another competitor has also now stepped in and due to these factors, the appellants have been forced to close their production. It is his contention that the wrong classification is having recurring effect and that the non-consideration of beneficial notification is also a case of recurring revenue effect for considering for early hearing. He contended that Notification No. 97 dated 10-2-1986 and SSI Notification No. 175/86 have been wrongly denied and as a result, the appellants have been facing severe financial hardship and if early hearing is not granted there is absolutely no chance of its survival resulting in loss to them as well as to the Revenue.
Shri Nair, learned DR left the matter at the discretion of the Bench.
3. On a careful consideration of the matter, we are of the view that the non-grant of early hearing is likely to cause closure of the unit which may cause both financial revenue loss and also loss to the appellants. The determination of correct classification and recurring effect has been considered as a just ground for grant of early hearing. The appellants have also shown that due to smuggled goods being in the market, their goods being priced higher due to duty is facing difficulty in sale resulting in total fall in production. This hardship can be surmounted if early hearing is granted and decision rendered early. There is force in this argument. After all, we have to take a pragmatic view, in the interest of justice and if the early decision is likely to benefit both the sides and also save revenue loss, then the prayer for early hearing could be granted, more so when there is a question of correct classification of goods having recurring effect. In the result, the application is allowed. The Registry may list the case for hearing during the month of October, 1992.