1996 (3) TMI 146

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... l for the parties. 3.In this case, it is not in dispute that against the order of adjudication passed by the respondent - Assistant Commissioner/Additional Commissioner of Central Excises, the petitioner has preferred an appeal under Section 35 of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 (in short 'the Act') along with an application under the proviso to Section 35F thereof for dispensation of pre- .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... assessees. Till such a remedial measures are taken, it will be unjust and unreasonable to permit the respondent-adjudicating authorities to continue with their coercive actions initiated to recover the disputed demands. 6.In somewhat similar circumstances, in the case of M/s. Charak Pharmaceuticals v. Union of India - Writ Appeal No. 578 of 1996 D/D 14-2-1996 a Division Bench of this Court had .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... trained from pursuing recovery proceedings in respect of demands which are subject matter of appeal till the application filed by the petitioner under the proviso to Section 35F of the Act is finally disposed of. Goods detained if any, should also be released. But the stay of recovery proceedings and release of the detained goods are subject to the condition that the petitioner furnishes a bond (w .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X