1996 (9) TMI 136 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash an order passed by the first respondent
2. Refusal to adjourn proceedings by the first respondent
3. Allegation of undue hardship due to the demanded deposit

Analysis:
The petitioner sought a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash an order passed by the first respondent, directing the petitioner to pay a substantial amount forthwith. The petitioner contended that the request for adjournment of the case was genuine, and the Tribunal should have granted the adjournment to allow the petitioner to present its case effectively. The petitioner argued that even with regard to the prima facie case, they would be able to satisfy the Tribunal. The petitioner emphasized the undue hardship caused by the demanded deposit, despite being a reputed company. On the contrary, the respondent argued that there was no infirmity in the impugned order.

The court, after considering the contentions of both parties, found that justice would be served by allowing the petitioner to present its case before the Tribunal to bring it within the purview of the relevant law. The court held that the impugned order was quashed and set aside. The first respondent was directed to provide a fresh hearing to the petitioner within four weeks and pass orders on merits and in accordance with the law. The court ruled no costs to be awarded in this matter and deemed no order necessary in a related application.