MESSRS N. K. FIRE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The subject matter of challenge in this writ-application is the order passed by the respondent No.2, i.e. Commissioner of Central Excise and CGST, Bhavnagar.

(2.) The operative part of the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 reads thus:

(3.) We take notice of the fact that the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 is an appealable order under Section 35(B) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. An appeal would lie before the Appellate Tribunal. We also took notice of the provision of Section 35(F) of the Act, 1944. The same is with respect to the deposit of certain percentage of duty demanded or penalty imposed before filing an appeal. As provision for statutory appeal has been provided against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner, we called upon Mr. Dave to explain why we should not relegate his client to prefer an appeal before the Tribunal. Mr. Dave, the learned counsel appearing for the writ-applicant, submitted that three principal submissions going to the root of the matter were canvassed and have been noted by the Commissioner in his impugned order, but at the same time, they have not been dealt with in any manner. According to him, the gist of his three principal submissions is as under: