9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Petition seeking writ of certiorari to quash order by Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal; Direction to not press for deposit of adjudged duty amount; Appeal hearing without pre-deposit insistence. Analysis: The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to quash the order dated 8-11-1993 by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, and to direct the respondents not to press for the deposit of Rs. 1,19,175.32. The petitioner had appealed against an order by the Collector, Central Excise, and filed a stay-cum-waiver application before the tribunal. The tribunal's order directed the petitioner to deposit the entire adjudged duty amount and penalty. The petitioner argued that they were running into losses and did not have the financial capacity to make the deposit, urging for a waiver. However, the tribunal rejected the waiver application without addressing the petitioner's points, including the erroneous nature of the duty imposition and time-barred demands. The counsel for the opposite party justified the tribunal's order, stating that there was no mention of the petitioner's points in the order. Upon reviewing the stay application and annexed balance sheet, it was found that the points were indeed raised before the tribunal. The High Court did not determine the controversy but directed the tribunal to reconsider the matter if approached by the petitioner with a certified copy of the High Court's order within two weeks. The tribunal was instructed to consider the three points raised by the petitioner and pass a speaking order within four weeks, affording the petitioner an opportunity to present their case. The High Court decided not to quash the tribunal's order, as the equity between the parties would be adjusted if the tribunal gave a decision on the three grounds mentioned. In conclusion, the High Court disposed of the writ petition finally, issuing a certified copy of the order to the counsel on payment of usual charges within three days. The direction was given for the tribunal to reconsider the matter based on the petitioner's points, ensuring a fair opportunity for the petitioner to present their case and receive a decision from the tribunal.
|
