Choudhary Mineral and Chemicals Vs. Union of India (Uoi) - Court Judgment |
| Excise |
| Madhya Pradesh High Court |
| Mar-19-2003 |
| Writ Petition No. 5324 of 2002 |
| A.K. Mishra, J. |
| 2003(161)ELT117(MP) |
| Central Excise Act, 1944 - Sections 35F; ;Constitution of India - Article 226 |
| Choudhary Mineral and Chemicals |
| Union of India (Uoi) |
| P.K. Tiwari and ;R.K. Choudhary, Advs. |
| Petition dismissed |
.....that an order in a writ petition can fit into the subtle contour of articles 226 and 227 of the constitution in a composite manner and they can co-inside, co-exist, overlap or imbricate. in this context it is apt to note that there may be cases where the single judge may feel disposed or inclined to issue a writ to do full and complete justice because it is to be borne in mind that article 226 of the constitution is fundamentally a repository and reservoir of justice based on equity and good conscience. it will depend upon factual matrix of each case. dr. jaidev siddha v. jaiprakash siddha, 2007(2) mpjr (fb) 361: air 2007 mp 269 (fb) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of slp preferred against order reported in rama and company v. state of madhya pradesh [2007 (2) mpjr 229 (db) (mp)]. .....of admission.3. the appeal of petitioner has been dismissed by the cegat as per order p.1, dated 14-9-2000 from non-compliance of the provisions of section 35 of the central excise act, 1944 within 15 days of the receipt of the order. the date on which the order was passed i.e. 28-8-2000 non-appeared on behalf of the petitioner before the cegat. appeal was dismissed under section 35f of the central excise act, 1944. petitioner submits that the order has been received belatedly. the order is unjust.4. it is for the petitioner to file appropriate application before the cegat showing cause of non-appearance and non-ompliance of the order and in case petitioner is having any hardship, that question has to be urged before the cegat. considering the nature of the order passed by the cegat, i find no scope of interference in the petition. counsel for petitionerhas expressed the willingness to file appropriate application before the cegat. in case the said application is filed, the same has to be considered in accordance with law by the cegat. writ petition is dismissed with the aforesaid observation.
A.K. Mishra, J.
1. Shri P.K. Tiwari with Shri R.K. Choudhary for the petitioner.
2. Heard on question of admission.
3. The appeal of petitioner has been dismissed by the CEGAT as per order P.1, dated 14-9-2000 from non-compliance of the provisions of Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 within 15 days of the receipt of the order. The date on which the order was passed i.e. 28-8-2000 non-appeared on behalf of the petitioner before the CEGAT. Appeal was dismissed under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Petitioner submits that the order has been received belatedly. The order is unjust.
4. It is for the petitioner to file appropriate application before the CEGAT showing cause of non-appearance and non-ompliance of the order and in case petitioner is having any hardship, that question has to be urged before the CEGAT. Considering the nature of the order passed by the CEGAT, I find no scope of interference in the petition. Counsel for petitionerhas expressed the willingness to file appropriate application before the CEGAT. In case the said application is filed, the same has to be considered in accordance with law by the CEGAT. Writ petition is dismissed with the aforesaid observation.