Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ratlam Wires Private Limited vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 3 January, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2000(71)ECC400, 2000(120)ELT71(MP)
Author: J.G. Chitre
Bench: J.G. Chitre
ORDER J.G. Chitre, J.
1. All these writ petitions are being decided by a common order because these petitions are being decided on strictly question of law.
2. In contest Sarvashri G.M. Chaphekar, sr. counsel instructed by SS Samvatsar, Masani, SM Kolhi with Sanjay Kolhi, AM Mathor, sr. counsel instructed by B. Pandya, AP Patankar, Ashutosh Upadhyay, have been heard for petitioners. Shri BG Neema, standing counsel for Union of India and other respondents have been heard in context with the record of writ petitions.
3. All these petitions are being heard at this stage by issuing rule and by consent, the rule returnable forthwith. By consent, all these writ petitions are taken up for hearing and final disposal, in the interest of justice.
4. All the advocates placed reliance on the judgment of Bombay High Court in the matter of Velcord Textiles v. Union of India reported in 1999 (111) E.L.T. 351 (Bom.) (a Division Bench judgment) where the High Court of Bombay held - "Even if the commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Act is dealing with the matter reflecting around provisions of Section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as Act for convenience) is duty bound to apply judicial mind, giving the reasons justifying the conclusion made to be eitherway."
5. Same sort of view is taken by Delhi High Court in the matter of Chakara Chemicals & Soaps Inds. v. UOI reported in 1999 (84) ECR 300 (Delhi). The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Bhopal has rejected the applications preferred by all the petitioners for stay/waiver in view of provisions of Section 35F of the Act. The Commissioner placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India v. Jesus Sales Corporation reported in 1996 (83) E.L.T. 486 (S.C.). While passing the Commissioner did not give reasons at all for justifying his conclusion, which has been assailed by these petitions.
6. The Commissioner (Appeals) while exercising powers under Section 35F of the Act, acts as quasi judicial authority and he is obliged to discharge satisfactory functions which would show the application of judicial mind and assessment of the facts and circumstances of each and every case. Not only that, he is to weigh the material which has been placed before him and has to process it by the process of assessing the credentiality of the contentions of petitioner's. That needs an exercise which should even prima facie show that it is nothing but a judgment which has been by process of application of judicial mind. In the present matter unfortunately it does not appear to be so. Therefore, the orders which are being assailed by these petitions can not be upheld as judicial verdicts resulting in rejecting the prayer made by the petitioners for stay/waiver in view of provisions of Section 35F of the Act.
7. In the interest of justice and for maintaining a clean stream of justice all these orders will have to be set aside and all the matters will have to be remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for disposal according to law and for passing a well reasoned order with appropriate application of judicial mind.
8. More observations need in W. P. 853/99 and W.P. 1078/99, from this court. It was not proper on the part of the Commissioner (Appeals) to dismiss the appeals of those petitioners on account of defaults and non-deposit of the amounts of duty.
9. The petitioners should report in the office of the Commissioner (Appeal) on 21-1-2000. No order as to costs keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the matter. As the said order has been set aside, the Commissioner should treat them as restored in accordance with law till final disposal.