LAWS(DLH)-1997-4-89

MODERN METAL WORKS Vs. CEGAT

Decided On April 03, 1997
Modern Metal Works Appellant
V/S
CEGAT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by an order of May 27, 1988 passed by the Collector of Central Excise. M/s. Modern Metal Works, who is the petitioner before me, filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal which was disposed of on 29th August, 1986 with a direction to the Principal Collector to dispose of the matter within a period of six months from the date of the receipt of the order. However, it appears that the matter was not heard by the Principal Collector himself but by the Director Publication and that too not within the period prescribed. Consequent upon the order so passed an application was moved by the Department for condonation of delay. The petitioner firm, however, opposed the application. This led to a difference of opinion on the question as to whether delay could be condoned or not. On account of that difference of opinion the following question was referred by the Appellate Tribunal to the President in terms of the Proviso to Section 129C(5) of the Customs Act read with Section 35D of the Central Excises and Salt Act :

(2.) While referring to the order of D.B. I passed on 23rd September, 1991 the President passed an order on 15th March, 1996. The order, at places, makes one sad, more so as it comes from the pen of a retired Chief Justice. I may, in this respect, refer to paragraphs 2 & 3 of the order : Here they are :

(3.) Mercifully, the President did decide to hear the matter. While condoning the delay by his order dated 22nd November, 1996 the President still avoided to answer all the questions raised. His order of 15th March, 1996 read along with the order of 22nd November, 1996 and his refusal to deal with all the questions raised despite the order of D.B. I, dated 23rd September, 1991 directing him to decide them, makes an unfortunate reading, to say the least. While saying so, I have particularly in my mind paragraph 8 of the order of the President dated 22nd December, 1996. The point in issue referred to in that paragraph was specifically raised in the writ petition which led to the order of D.B. I, dated 23rd September, 1991 and with regard to which the Court had directed the President to give his findings. And yet, he gave no finding on it.