AUTOMATION SYSTEMS Vs. CENTRAL EXCISE G A T

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner's appeal before the Customs, Excise and gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Southern Regional Bench was dismissed on 14-7-1994. Against the said order the petitioner seems to have filed an appeal under Section 35l of the Central excises and Salt Act. In the meanwhile the petitioner has also filed a rectification petition before the CEGAT on the ground that similar matters, involving identical issues had been referred to a larger Bench by the Tribunal and that order is reported inwilson & Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise 1993 (65) ELT 608, 1993 (46) ECR 460]. According to the petitioner, his case was omitted because of the lapse of Consultant, who appeared before the tribunal. THErefore, the limited prayer in this writ petition is that till the rectification petition is decided, the respondents should be restrained from enforcing recovery on the basis of the order, dated 14-7-1994. Learned counsel for the respondents opposes the petition and says that it is up to the petitioner to move the tribunal for appropriate orders. Having given my anxious consideration to the rival contentions, I am of the opinion that the petitioner can be directed to file an application for stay before the Tribunal in the pending rectification application and take the order of the Tribunal on the stay application. However, I propose to give some time for making such an application and till that time, the enforcement of the order, dated 14-7-1994 , shall be kept in abeyance. Accordingly, I direct the petitioner to file the stay application before the Tribunal on or before 28-2-1995 and till then the enforcement is stayed. If by 28-2-1995 the petitioner is unable to get the stay order from the Tribunal, it is open to the respondents to enforce the recovery. THE writ petition is ordered in the above terms. No costs. .