MEETA CHEMICALS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule, service of which is waived by learned Central Government Standing Counsel Mr Akshay Mehta for the respondents. Upon joint request, the matter is taken up for final hearing today itself, considering the special facts obtainable in the present case.

(2.) The Commissioner (Appeals), respondent No.2 has recorded stay order No.383/1999 on 17.6.99, whereby, the petitioner has been directed to deposit an amount of Rs.1,90,000.00 as pre-deposit under section 35F of the Central Excise and Salt Act 1944, rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for total waiver of the pre-deposit in view of the provisions of rule 57D and the object of Modvat scheme, which is directly under challenge before us in this petition. Therefore, the short question which requires our consideration and adjudication is whether the impugned direction is sustainable or not.

(3.) We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and have considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the Modvat scheme and the Central Excise Rules. The main grievance voiced before us is that respondent No.2, Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order has considered the rule provisions of rule 57-A and 57-C and has not considered the provisions of rule 57D of the Rules. Upon the plain perusal of the impugned stay order, this contention appears to be justified. Even in the application, emphasise appears to be on the provisions of rule 57-D and the Commissioner (Appeals) does not seem to have considered the provisions of section 57D which prescribes circumstance under which credit of duty not to be denied or varied in certain circumstances. It is, really, very unfortunate that despite earlier order of remand by this Court, the point in focus could not be considered by the appellate authority, while passing the impugned stay order.