STERLITE INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged, in this petition, the impugned order dated 10.08.2004 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zone Bench, Mumbai (for short "the Tribunal") passed in application no. E/S/1691/04/Mumbai filed in Appeal No.E/2147/04/Mumbai, whereby the learned Tribunal granted conditional stay in favour of the petitioner against recovery of duty, penalty and interest on the condition that the petitioner may deposit Rs.1.50 crores towards pre-deposit and report compliance to it by 13.09.2004.

(2.) Learned Counsel Shri Mihir Joshi appearing for Mr.S.N.Thakkar for the petitioner, relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Mehsana District Cooperative Milk P.U.Ltd. V/s Union of India in 2003(154) ELT 347 (SC), submitted that the learned Tribunal has not at all considered the prima facie case of the petitioner on merits and without assigning any reasons for granting conditional stay in favour of the petitioner disposed of his application. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal at Annexure `E' dated 10.08.2004 is required to be quashed and set aside by this Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Learned Counsel Shri Joshi for the petitioner in support of above submissions took us through the entire impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal at Annexure `E' and submitted that the learned Tribunal has merely narrated brief facts in para 3 of its order, in para 4 reproduced the contentions raised by the petitioner before the Commissioner (Appeals) and in para 5 judgments of the Tribunal sought to be relied upon by the petitioner have been reproduced by the learned Tribunal and in para 6 the Tribunal has stated that how the Commissioner, Central Excise has elaborately dealt with the contentions raised by the assessee in his order and in para 7 without dealing with the submissions of the petitioner passed an order of conditional stay. He submitted that the Tribunal has committed factual error in para 7 of its order by observing that there was a part payment of Rs. 5,83,97,856/- (paid during the period from May, 2002 to March, 2003). Mr.Joshi took us through the impugned order Annexure `D' passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and relevant page 94 wherein supplementary amount of duty paid from May 2002 to March 2003 was narrated. Under the circumstances, Mr.Joshi submitted that this Court should exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioners as the learned Tribunal without application of mind and without assigning reasons in its order and without dealing with the contentions raised by the petitioner before it, passed the impugned order of conditional stay whereby the petitioner is seriously prejudiced.