9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
Challenge to stay order dated 18th March, 1999 - Compliance with Notification No. 15 of 1994 - Requirement of evidence for availing modvat facility - Jurisdiction of the appellate authority - Judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution. Analysis: The petition sought to quash the stay order dated 18th March, 1999, in light of an appeal pending before the appellate authority. The petitioner contended that the appellate authority rejected their stay application without proper grounds. The crux of the matter revolved around Notification No. 15 of 1994, which required specific particulars to be submitted under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The appellate authority's decision was based on the petitioner's failure to provide evidence in the form of a manufacturer's invoice or a certificate certifying direct purchase in wholesale trade. The petitioner argued that such a requirement was not mandated by Rule 57G or Notification No. 15 of 1994, asserting that the insistence on this evidence was unlawful and contrary to the Act and Rules. The respondent, however, supported the appellate authority's decision, emphasizing the need for verification of goods through proper documentation. It was contended that the authority's request for invoices or certificates was not arbitrary or unreasonable, especially when considering a modvat facility claim. The jurisdiction of the court under Article 226 of the Constitution was highlighted as limited to reviewing orders for unlawfulness or arbitrariness. Ultimately, it was deemed essential for the petitioner to satisfy the authority regarding the modvat facility's availability. The court, while inclined to address the petitioner's arguments, decided to direct the appellate authority to expedite the appeal's disposal without insisting on a pre-deposit. This decision was made in the interest of justice, with a clear directive for the appellate authority to decide the matter within three months of receiving the writ. It was emphasized that the court's observations were specific to the Special Civil Application and should not influence the appellate authority's independent decision-making process during the appeal hearing. The rule was made absolute accordingly, with no order as to costs.
|
