Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dayal Laminates Pvt. Ltd. vs Cegat And Cce on 24 June, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2002(83)ECC819
Author: A.M. Sapre
Bench: A.M. Sapre
ORDER A.M. Sapre, J.
1. Heard finally with consent of both the counsel for the parties.
2. The issue involved in this writ is heard and decided along with this writ by me in W.P. No. 2487 of 2000. I, therefore, do not consider it necessary to repeat those very facts and legal submissions while disposing of this writ, as it will result in duplication of the same reasoning in this writ; as well. This Court has dealt with the submissions argued and dismissed the writ but with some observations.
3. In substance the issue sought to be raised in this writ, is whether the Tribunal (CEGAT) was justified in partly rejecting the application made by the petitioner for deposit of duty/penalty amount impugned in appeal. The Tribunal while entertaining the appeal and stay called upon the petitioner to deposit 50% of the total dues towards duty and a sum of Rs. one lakh towards penalty. It is further observed that failure to deposit will result in dismissal of appeal itself.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has made legal submissions. They were dealt with and rejected in other petition. Learned Counsel then also made attempt to assail the order of Tribunal by taking me to the controversy involved on merits of the appeal and contended that a case of full stay was made out before the appellate Tribunal and hence it should have granted absolute stay rather than partial i.e. 50% of the total dues. Even this submission was considered by me in other petition and was rejected. The reasoning assigned does apply to this case as well. Even perusal of the impugned order indicate that it does not call for any interference, as it is quite a reasoned one.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that certain documents were not taken note of by CEGAT, while deciding the stay matter. I find no merit in this submission. While deciding the stay matter, consideration for grant of stay are different. It is not a hearing on the merits of the appeal, where each and every issue having a bearing over the merits need to be taken note of. It is a matter of exercising discretion and once it is noticed that relevant factors relating to grant of stay were noticed and partial stay was granted, the order becomes unassailable.
6. However, while dismissing the writ and upholding of the order. I consider it fit to grant four months time to the petitioner to deposit the money in terms of the directions given by the Tribunal. In case, if the amount is deposited within four months from the date of this order, the Tribunal shall hear and decide the appeal of the petitioner on merits, after granting opportunity to the petitioner within six months from the date of deposit.
7. With these observations, the petition fails and is dismissed. A copy of the order passed in W.P. No. 2487/2000 be treated as part of this order and a copy of the said order be kept in the file of this case.