Deora Wire and Wires Vs. Collector, Central Excise and Customs and ors.

Deora Wire and Wires vs Collector, Central Excise and Customs and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Jul 08, 1993

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/507157

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/507157
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Judge: V.S. Kokje and ; R.D. Shukla, JJ.
Decided On: Jul 08, 1993
Case Number: Miscellaneous Petition No. 1387 of 1993
Subject: Excise

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Appeal - Central excise--Pre-deposit--Stay--Writs under Constitution--Tribunal directing assessee to make deposit of Rs.10 lacs as condition for hearing appeal--Subsequent decision of Tribunal in another case upholding assessee's contention--Assessee filing application for modification of earlier order in view of su...

Key legal issue: Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Deora Wire and Wires

Advocate Shri. J.P. Gupta

Respondent

Collector, Central Excise and Customs and ors.

Legal References

Reported In: 1993(44)ECC252

Excerpt

appeal - central excise--pre-deposit--stay--writs under constitution--tribunal directing assessee to make deposit of rs.10 lacs as condition for hearing appeal--subsequent decision of tribunal in another case upholding assessee's contention--assessee filing application for modification of earlier order in view of subsequent decision--tribunal rejecting application on ground that it would amount to review of earlier order without considering applicability of subsequent decision to assessee's case--writ petition challenging tribunal's order--maintainable - tribunal directed to hear assessee's appeal without pre-deposit of rs.10 lacs and give decision within specified time. - - it was also contended that the demand was clearly barred by limitation on the admitted facts of the case......that after the earlier order, or which modification was sought, was passed, the cegat itself in collector of central excise, bombay-ii v. nisha conductors (1993 (21) etr 520 had decided the point involved in the case and the decision upheld the contention raised by the petitioner in its appeal. it was also contended that the demand was clearly barred by limitation on the admitted facts of the case. the tribunal refused to modify the order mainly on the ground that it would amount to a review of the earlier order in which the pre-requisites are not fulfilled. the cegat did not go into the question as to whether the decision in the nisha conductors' case (supra) fully covered the case of the petitioner or not.3. having heard the learned counsel, we have come to the conclusion that it would be just and proper in the circumstances of the case to dispose off the petition by making a time bound direction for hearing and disposal of the appeal itself. normally, we would have set aside the impugned order of the cegat and directed it to consider afresh the impact of decision in nisha conductors' case (supra) on the appeal. however, loss of time and duplication of procedure involved in such a course would not justify making such an order but it would be in the interest of justice and all concerned that the appeal itself is disposed off within two months.4. we, therefore, set aside the impugned order dated 18-6-93 passed by the cegat and direct that the appeal itself shall be heard without enforcing the condition of deposit of rs.10 lacs. 22-7-1993 is already fixed in the case for report of compliance with the impugned order. on that date the parties shall appear before the cegat and a date for final hearing of the case shall be fired by the cegat. the case shall be disposed off within two months from 22.7.93. c.c. today on usual charges.

Full Judgment

ORDER

1. Heard Shri J.P. Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri B.G. Neema, learned Standing Counsel, who appears on an advance copy of the petition and LA. being supplied to him.

2. A very short question is involved in this case and, therefore, it is being disposed off finally at this stage alone. The petitioner's main complaint is against the order dated 18-6-93 passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short 'CEGAT'), rejecting the petitioner's application for modification of the order disposing off application for exemption from the condition of pre-deposit for maintainance of an appeal before the CEGAT. The petitioner had contended before the CEGAT that after the earlier order, or which modification was sought, was passed, the CEGAT itself in Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-II v. Nisha Conductors (1993 (21) ETR 520 had decided the point involved in the case and the decision upheld the contention raised by the petitioner in its appeal. It was also contended that the demand was clearly barred by limitation on the admitted facts of the case. The Tribunal refused to modify the order mainly on the ground that it would amount to a review of the earlier order in which the pre-requisites are not fulfilled. The CEGAT did not go into the question as to whether the decision in the Nisha Conductors' case (supra) fully covered the case of the petitioner or not.

3. Having heard the learned Counsel, we have come to the conclusion that it would be just and proper in the circumstances of the case to dispose off the petition by making a time bound direction for hearing and disposal of the appeal itself. Normally, we would have set aside the impugned order of the CEGAT and directed it to consider afresh the impact of decision in Nisha Conductors' case (supra) on the appeal. However, loss of time and duplication of procedure involved in such a course would not justify making such an order but it would be in the interest of justice and all concerned that the appeal itself is disposed off within two months.

4. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order dated 18-6-93 passed by the CEGAT and direct that the appeal itself shall be heard without enforcing the condition of deposit of Rs.10 lacs. 22-7-1993 is already fixed in the case for report of compliance with the impugned order. On that date the parties shall appear before the CEGAT and a date for final hearing of the case shall be fired by the CEGAT. The case shall be disposed off within two months from 22.7.93. C.C. today on usual charges.

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 1993 Same Parties Deora Wire and Wires vs Collector, Central Excise and Customs... Same Subject Excise Same Judge V.S. Kokje and ; R.D. Shukla, JJ.

Excise