1991 (1) TMI 142 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Tribunal's power to modify an earlier order and direct payment of balance amount as a condition for adjournment.
2. Interpretation of Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act.
3. Justifiability of Tribunal's decision to recall the earlier order based on an adjournment request.
4. Judicial discretion and proper conduct of the Tribunal in passing orders.

Analysis:

1. The main issue in this case was whether the Tribunal had the power to modify an earlier order and direct the petitioner to pay the balance amount as a condition for granting an adjournment. The Tribunal had initially directed the petitioner to deposit Rs. 15 lakhs out of a total demand of Rs. 22 lakhs. However, upon a request for adjournment, the Tribunal ordered the petitioner to pay the remaining Rs. 7.6 lakhs. The High Court held that the Tribunal did not have the authority under Section 35F of the Act to make such a modification based solely on an adjournment request.

2. The interpretation of Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act was crucial in this case. The petitioner argued that the Tribunal exceeded its powers by modifying the earlier order without proper legal basis. The Court agreed with the petitioner, emphasizing that the power to recall an order should be exercised within the confines of Section 35F. The Court highlighted that the mere request for adjournment did not justify the Tribunal's decision to demand the balance amount from the petitioner.

3. The justifiability of the Tribunal's decision to recall the earlier order solely based on the adjournment request was also a significant issue. The Court noted that the petitioner had only sought an adjournment to have the present appeal heard along with other connected appeals, which were already stayed. The Court found that the Tribunal's decision to demand the balance amount was unjustified and passed hastily, possibly due to repeated adjournment requests. The Court emphasized the importance of the Tribunal acting judiciously and with restraint when passing orders.

4. Lastly, the judgment highlighted the importance of judicial discretion and proper conduct by the Tribunal in passing orders. The Court set aside the impugned order and left it to the Tribunal to decide whether the appeals should be heard together. The Court emphasized that if the points involved were the same, the Tribunal might consider hearing all cases together. The writ petition was allowed, and no costs were awarded, indicating the Court's disapproval of the Tribunal's actions in this case.