1990 (4) TMI 147 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Prayer for dispensing with predeposit of duty amount - Validity of order passed by Assistant Collector - Jurisdiction of Collector for adjudication - Applicability of Section 11-A amendment - Necessity of filing application before Collector (Appeals) - Merits of the case - Grant of stay application.

Analysis:
The applicants sought dispensation of the predeposit of duty amount of Rs. 8,38,922.13, arguing that the order by the Assistant Collector was invalid due to the subsequent amendment to Section 11-A, which required adjudication by the Collector for cases involving a larger period. The advocate highlighted the necessity for the Collector to follow proper procedures, citing relevant case law and emphasizing that no new facts had emerged warranting a fresh adjudication. The advocate also stressed the financial distress of the applicant's sick unit and requested a stay. The respondent contended that the subsequent valid order by the Collector superseded the Assistant Collector's order, which was deemed void in law, and opposed the stay application.

Upon hearing both parties and considering the facts, the Tribunal found prima facie merit in the applicant's case. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Shiv Chander Kapoor v. Amar Bose, the Tribunal emphasized the enforceability of an order until invalidated through legal proceedings. The Tribunal referenced legal discussions on the concept of "void" orders, highlighting the need for legal action to establish invalidity. Relying on these principles, the Tribunal dispensed with the predeposit of the duty amount and instructed the revenue authorities to halt recovery proceedings during the appeal. To protect revenue interests, the Tribunal prohibited the alienation of the applicant's assets without the Tribunal's prior approval.