Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anjali Coolers (P) Ltd. vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 31 March, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1997(94)ELT40(MP)
ORDER Fakhruddin, J.
1. By this Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner contends that Respondent No. 3, the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise Division, Gwalior had passed an order, Annexure P/1, dated 23-10-1996, against which the petitioner has preferred an appeal along with Stay application before Respondent No. 2, the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise C.G.O. Complex, Shivaji Chauraha, A.B. Road, Indore, as per Annexure P/2, on 11-2-1997, but neither the Appeal nor the application for interim relief is being heard and decided by the appellate authority. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that coercive measures have been adopted for recovery. Learned counsel orally submitted that earlier the petitioner's goods in 131 Numbers and then 41 in numbers have been seized.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on 1995 (80) E.L.T. 505 (M.P.) - Gajra Bevel Gears Ltd. v. Union of India and 1997 (90) E.L.T. 299 (All.) - Arvi Components (P) Limited v. Union of India, especially paras 9,10 and 11 of the Judgment and contended that it is obligatory on the part of the Appellate Authority to consider and dispose of stay application within a reasonable time and if the Authority is not doing so, then executive Authority proceeds with coercive measures for recovery, which appears to be gross abuse of the process of law on the part of the appellate authority reflecting badly upon his efficiency if not interity.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand, contended that the appeal is barred by limitation. Counsel for the petitioner however, disputes this position and contended that the Appeal is within limitation.
4. Be that as it may, the appeal and the application for stay including question of limitation have to be decided. In that view of the matter, and in view of the order passed in connected case (W.P. No. 278 of 97), it is directed that Respondent No. 2 shall decide the appeal as expeditiously as possible. It shall also decide the application for interim relief as early as possible preferably within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the Order passed by this Court today along with copy of Writ Petition and its Annexures.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that he be given liberty to approach this Court if the matter is not heard as directed hereinabove, within the stipulated period. The liberty as prayed for is granted.
6. With this observation and the direction the petition is disposed of.