1992 (10) TMI 149 - AT - Central Excise

Issues:
1. Competency of the Bench to hear the application for reconsideration/review of a stay order passed by a Three-Member Bench.
2. Clarification on whether the application is for variation or review of the order.
3. Legal validity of the order passed by the Hon'ble President directing the matter to be heard by the same Bench.
4. Financial position of the applicant in relation to the deposit of the amount demanded.
5. Justification for varying or altering the earlier stay order based on the current financial status of the applicant.

Analysis:

1. The main issue in this case was the competency of the Bench to hear an application for reconsideration/review of a stay order passed by a Three-Member Bench. The appellant's counsel argued that the present Bench was not competent to hear the application as it related to the modification of a stay order passed by a Three-Member Bench. However, the Tribunal held that the present application was not for rectification of mistake but rather for varying or altering the stay order. The Tribunal determined that this Bench was competent to hear such an application based on the judgment in Empire Industries Ltd. v. Union of India.

2. Another issue was the clarification on whether the application was for variation or review of the order. The appellant's counsel seemed unclear on this aspect, describing the application as both for variation and reconsideration. The Tribunal noted this discrepancy and concluded that the application was indeed for varying or altering the stay order passed earlier.

3. The legal validity of the order passed by the Hon'ble President directing the matter to be heard by the same Bench was also challenged. The appellant's counsel argued that the order of the Hon'ble President had no legal validity and should be ignored. However, the Tribunal held that it was not within their competence to decide on the legality of the President's order, stating that the remedy for any grievance against that order lay elsewhere.

4. The financial position of the applicant in relation to the deposit of the amount demanded was a crucial aspect of the case. The appellant's counsel focused on the financial status of the applicant, presenting balance sheets to support their argument that they could not comply with the deposit as ordered. In contrast, the respondent argued that the applicant's liquidity position was sound and they could deposit the required amount.

5. Finally, the Tribunal analyzed the justification for varying or altering the earlier stay order based on the current financial status of the applicant. After reviewing the balance sheets and financial details provided, the Tribunal found that the total current assets of the applicants substantially exceeded their total current liabilities. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the application for variation or alteration of the stay order, directing the appellants to comply with the order by a specified date.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of maintaining the earlier stay order based on the financial position of the applicant and dismissed the application for variation or review.

← Previous Next →