Bombay High Court
Shivraj Fine Art Litho Works vs Asstt. Collector, Central Excise on 1 January, 1800
Equivalent citations: 1990(49)ELT51(BOM)
JUDGMENT Dhabe, J.
1. Parties by counsel, Rule heard forthwith.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has urged before us that in the appeal preferred against the demand of Central Excise duty of Rs.84,231.92 confirmed by the Assistant Collector, the Collector (Appeals), Central Excise, dismissed the application for stay of the said demand made by the petitioner without hearing it and thereafter dismissed the appeal itself for non-compliance with the condition of deposit of the excise duty under appeal. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent 1 does not dispute that the application for stay was dismissed without hearing the petitioner. There is thus an infirmity in the order disposing of the stay application as well as disposing of the appeal itself for non-compliance with the condition of deposit alongwith the appeal. The instant writ petition, therefore, deserves to be allowed.
2. The learned counsel for the respondent 1 has stated before us that the demand in the amount of Rs.47,262.79 is not disputed by the petitioner and hence as a condition for restoring the appeal, the petitioner should be directed to deposit the said amount with the respondent No. 1 the stay can operate for the remaining amount. The condition proposed by the respondent No. 1 is fair and just.
3. In the result, the instant writ petition is allowed. The order of the respondent No. 2 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner is set aside and the appeal is restored to file on the condition that within one month from the date of this order, the petitioner shall deposit with the respondent No. 1 the undisputed amount of Rs. 47,262.79. The respondent No.2 shall thereafter decide the appeal within three months and till then there shall be stay for the remaining amount payable by the petitioner.
4. Rule made absolute in the above terms. No costs.