Varuni Chemicals (P) Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise, Madurai on 10 March, 1994
3. One of the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had time up to 31-12-1992, and therefore the Tribunal was not justified in dismissing the appeal on 31-12-1992 itself. Secondly, it is argued that certain vital considerations were not taken into account before fixing the quantum of amount to be deposited by way of pre-deposit. Learned counsel, therefore, refers to a recent judgment of a Division Bench of this Court, dated 15-11-1993 in Collector of Central Excise, Madurai-2 v. Coronation Litho Works [1994 (69) E.L.T. 238 (Madras)]. Certainly, the Tribunal could not have considered this decision because the order of the Tribunal was on 2-11-1992. That apart, I am not inclined to permit the petitioner to canvass the correctness of the order, dated 2-11-1992, because at least two petitions had been filed, one on 30-12-1992 and another on 29-1-1993 seeking extension of time to pay the amount as per the order of the Tribunal, dated 2-11-1992. It is well-known that orders made under Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, are more in the nature of an interim order based on prima facie aspects of the case. It will not be proper for this Court to review these orders, especially when the petitioner had accepted the order and sought for extension of time for payment of the amount. In this view of the matter, I am not inclined to interfere with the order, dated 2-11-1992 made by the second respondent Tribunal.