1995 (11) TMI 102 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Interpretation of beneficial notification for Small Scale Industrial units, Stay of recovery proceedings pending appeal

In this case, the main issue revolved around the interpretation of a beneficial notification meant for Small Scale Industrial units. The petitioners, a factory owner and a loan licensee, were disputing the Central Excise Rule 230 action invoked by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise for recovery of amounts exceeding the limit prescribed in Notification No. 175/86. The Assistant Commissioner's adjudication order was challenged through appeals, which were rejected by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals). The Appellate Authority held that the value of clearance of both the factory owner and the loan licensee had to be clubbed, and if it exceeded the prescribed limit, they were not entitled to the benefits under the notification. Subsequently, the factory owner and the loan licensee filed appeals before the second respondent and sought stay under Section 35-F of the Central Excise Act pending the appeal.

The High Court, after considering the circumstances, directed the Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal to dispose of the appeals and stay petitions within 30 days from the date of the court's order or proof of receipt by the petitioners, whichever is earlier. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise was restrained from insisting on immediate payment of the balance amounts or taking coercive steps like locking the factory premises or attaching plant and machinery with stock until the Tribunal's final orders. The Court emphasized that the petitioners should not be penalized while their appeals were pending, especially when adjourned due to the Tribunal's scheduling issues. The writ petitions were disposed of accordingly, providing relief to the petitioners and ensuring a fair process pending the appellate decision.