9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
Disposal of multiple petitions with common questions regarding orders passed by the High Court, grievance of petitioners regarding directions given by the High Court, appeal on merits, application under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), burden on the Commissioner (Appeals) due to pending appeals, justification of impugned order, quashing of impugned order, direction to consider and dispose of appeals, coercive methods against petitioners, final disposal of petitions. Analysis: The judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore dealt with the disposal of several petitions, including W.P. No. 808 of 1998, W.P. No. 809 of 1998, and W.P. No. 829 of 1998, as they involved common questions related to orders passed by the High Court. The petitioners expressed dissatisfaction with the directions given by the High Court, stating that the Commissioner (Appeals) was supposed to hear their appeals on merits as per the High Court's instructions. However, orders were passed under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, directing the petitioners to deposit the duty amount instead. The petitioners argued that the appeals should have been heard on merits without any demand for depositing the duty. The Court noted that despite previous orders prohibiting the recovery of arrears pending the disposal of appeals, the petitioners were directed to deposit the duty amount, failing which their appeals would be dismissed. The Commissioner (Appeals) defended the impugned order by citing an overload of pending appeals, estimating a delay of about two months in taking up the appeals on merits. The Court, however, found no justification for the impugned order and emphasized that the previous directive to consider and dispose of appeals on merits without recovery still stood. Consequently, the Court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 19/22-5-1998 and directed the Appellate Authority to consider and dispose of the petitioners' appeals within two months. The Court clarified that no coercive methods should be used against the petitioners regarding arrears of duty during the pendency of the appeals. The petitions, along with the connected petitions, were finally disposed of, with no order as to costs. The Court ordered a copy of the judgment to be placed in the connected petitions and directed compliance within two days.
|
