1992 (4) TMI 46 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of High Court under Articles 226, 14, and 300A of the Constitution of India.
2. Dispute regarding excess and shortage of stock in a bonded store.
3. Legality of the order passed by the second respondent.
4. Appeal to the Customs, Excise, and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal.
5. Grant of stay application by the Tribunal.
6. Prima facie case and financial implications on the petitioner.
7. Direction by the High Court for filing an application for stay before the Tribunal.

Analysis:

1. The petition was filed under Articles 226, 14, and 300A of the Constitution of India against the Union of India, Collector of Central Excise, and Assistant Collector of Central Excise. The petitioner, engaged in manufacturing Ceramic Glazed Wall Tiles and Floor Tiles, faced a dispute leading to the accumulation of unsold stock in a bonded store at its factory premises. The Central Excise Department inspected the store, seized excess cartons, and noted shortages, leading to a show cause notice and subsequent order by the second respondent.

2. The petitioner challenged the order, alleging errors, lack of jurisdiction, and non-application of mind. The High Court observed that the decision on the merits of the case falls under the jurisdiction of the Customs, Excise, and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, where the appeal was pending. The High Court emphasized that it cannot delve into the merits of the case due to the pending appeal. However, considering the circumstances, the High Court directed the petitioner to file another application for stay before the Tribunal for reconsideration.

3. The High Court dismissed the petition, highlighting that the petitioner's remedy lies in the appeal before the Tribunal. The Court acknowledged the importance of the right to appeal and the need for a fair consideration of the case. The High Court's decision to dismiss the petition was based on the petitioner's choice of remedy through the appellate process and the Tribunal's authority to decide on the case's merits.

4. The High Court's direction for the petitioner to file a new application for stay before the Tribunal signifies a procedural step to address the concerns raised in the petition. By allowing the petitioner another opportunity to seek a stay, the High Court ensured a fair chance for the petitioner to present their case before the Tribunal and seek appropriate relief based on the facts and circumstances involved.

In conclusion, the High Court's judgment focused on the jurisdictional aspects, the pending appeal before the Tribunal, and the procedural fairness in allowing the petitioner to seek a stay. The Court's decision to dismiss the petition while providing a pathway for the petitioner to pursue relief through the Tribunal reflects a balanced approach to addressing the legal issues raised in the case.