EVEREST PLASTICS Vs. UNION OF INDIA UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India directed against the impugned order dated 3-11-1994 passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi whereby the petitioners - appellants have been directed to deposit in cash a sum of Rs. 15,000/- within 3 months and the disputed amount of duty of Rs. 3,83,612/- within 3 months in Excise Appeal No. 2009/94- NRB. Therefore, the petitioners prayed for the issue of a writ of certiorari against the said order and for issue of a writ of mandamus commanding respondent not to realise any amount from the petitioners in pursuance of the order dated 14-7-1993 passed by the Collector Central Excise, Meerut.

(2.) I have heard Sri L.P. Nathani, Senior Advocate for the petitioners and Sri Siddharath Singh standing counsel for Central Government and perused the material brought on record.

(3.) It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the learned appellate Tribunal has not at all considered the actual financial position of the petitioner - appellant while disposing of the waiver - stay application and has not complied with the requirements under the proviso to Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. In support of his contention the learned counsel Mr. Nathani invited my attention to the decisions in the case of Mitra Sen Industries v. Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi and Anr. -1988 (34) E.L.T. 450 (All.) and two other decisions of this Court in the case of M.C. Goel v. Union of India and Ors. -1988 (35) E.L.T. 449 (All.) and a recent decision of this Court in the case of Taj Beverages (P) Ltd., Agra v. Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi and Anr. 1992 (38) ECR 497 (Allahabad).