ORDER
G.A. Brahma Deva, Member (J)
1. This is an application filed by the party for an early hearing. Shri Parameshwaran appearing for the applicants requested for an early hearing on the ground that appeal was required to be disposed of within six months from the date of passing stay order as per proviso to Clause 2-A of Section 35C of the Central Excise Act. The relevant amended portion of Clause 2-A of Section 35C of the Act is as under :-
“Provided that where an order of stay is made in any proceedings relating to an appeal filed under Sub-section (1) of Section 35B, the Appellate Tribunal shall dispose of the appeal within a period of one hundred and eighty days from the date of such order.
Provided further that if such appeal is not disposed of within the period specified in the first proviso, the stay order shall, on the expiry of that period stand vacated.”
He submitted that in view of the mandatory clause, the appeal was to be disposed of within 180 days from the date of passing the said order.
2. On the other hand referring to the second proviso Smt. Radha Arun submitted that first proviso is not mandatory since second proviso clarified that if the matter is not disposed of within 180 days, the stay order shall on the expiry of that period stands vacated. She said that there was no urgency to take up this matter since sufficient old matters are pending before the Tribunal.
3. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides. Lot of appeals of previous years inclusive of 96-97 are pending before the Tribunal as it was rightly pointed out by the DR. We concur with the plea taken by the DR that there is no justification to grant an early hearing in this matter. There is no justification to give preference to an appeal of 2002. Since appeals of previous years in sufficient number are pending before the Tribunal. To grant an early hearing, as per the instructions, either it must be recurring nature, or fully covered, or if the disputed duty amount exceeds Rs. one crore. Since none of these conditions are fulfilled in this matter, neither it is possible nor feasible to grant an early hearing of the appeal. In the view we have taken, it is not possible to accede to the request made by the party for an early hearing. Miscellaneous application is hereby dismissed.