Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Sreeji Colour Chem Industries vs Commissioner Of C. Ex. And Cus. on 27 April, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2000(120)ELT590(TRI-MUMBAI)
ORDER Gowri Shankar, Member (T)
1. The modification of the Tribunal's order is requested for on the ground that a significant fact that the applicant's factory had been ordered to be detained by the Assistant Commissioner had not been raised in the stay application or during its hearing. The decisions of the Tribunal that the advocate for the applicant produced Agrasen Engineering Works v. Collector - 1990 (47) E.L.T. 90 and Annapurna Malleables Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE -1996 (88) E.L.T. 260 seems to suggest that in exceptional cases of peculiar facts and circumstances, in the interest of justice, matters may be heard again and again. Whether failure by the applicant to point out to the advocate, or being pointed out to the Advocate's failure to raise such a point by the advocate, amounts to such exceptional circumstances is highly questionable.
2. Apart from this, the fact of any detention of the goods or plant having been ordered has no bearing upon the stay application. We are concerned with in the stay application giving effect to the provisions of section 35F of the Act, which is an act independent of any proceedings of recovery in the course of which the goods may have been detained.
3. In the interest of justice, we order that the stay order shall not be enforced during the period given to the applicant for compliance, which is one month from today, and such compliance to be reported on 1-5-2000.