1992 (10) TMI 97 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Recovery of short-paid excise duty under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
2. Appeal against the order confirming the demand.
3. Application for waiver of the deposit requirement under Section 35F of the Act.
4. Delay in pronouncing the final order on the appeal.
5. Prayer for interim relief during the pendency of the appeal and waiver application.
6. Jurisdiction of the court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
7. Direction to the respondent No. 2 to pass final order on the appeal within a specified time frame.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a case where a petitioner was issued a notice to show cause for the recovery of short-paid excise duty amounting to a specific sum for a particular period. The Assistant Collector confirmed the demand, leading the petitioner to appeal before the Collector (Appeals) and file a waiver application under Section 35F of the Act. Despite the appeal and waiver application being submitted, the Superintendent of Central Excise pressed for payment, causing the petitioner to seek interim relief from the court to stay the implementation of the order during the appeal and waiver application's pendency.

The court, considering the circumstances, acknowledged the petitioner's prayer for interim relief and directed the respondent No. 2 to pass and pronounce the final order on the appeal within one month from the date of the production of the judgment's certified copy. The court further stayed the demand from the petitioner pursuant to the order of the Assistant Collector until the final order is pronounced by the respondent No. 2. The petitioner was instructed to provide a certified copy of the judgment to the respondent No. 2 within ten days.

The judgment highlights the court's exercise of its special constitutional jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to grant interim relief in exceptional cases. It emphasizes the importance of ensuring a fair process and timely resolution of appeals, directing the respondent No. 2 to expedite the final order's issuance. The judgment ultimately disposes of the petition while providing specific directions to address the petitioner's concerns and maintain procedural fairness in the adjudicatory process.