BASANT PAPER MILLS LTD Vs. CEGAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri A.P. Mathur learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Shishir Kumar learned Standing Counsel for the Central Excise Department and perused the record. Both the learned Counsels agree that this writ petition may be finally disposed of at the admission stage itself.

(2.) The grievance of the petitioner is that the stay /waiver application filed alongwith the appeal has not been properly considered by the learned Tribunal and therefore he submitted another application dated 26-2-1996 pointing out the omissions and the record which were not considered by the learned Tribunal while partially allowing the stay/waiver application. I have perused this application dated 26-2-1996 and find that the learned Counsel for the petitioner appellant had argued before the Tribunal about the illegality of the confiscation order and imposition of fine of Rs. 1 crore but this was not at all considered by the Tribunal. The learned Counsel for the appellant-petitioner had also argued about the financial position of the petitioner and had also taken a specific plea that the petitioner's Company had become a sick Unit and it was entitled to relief according to Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. Instead of considering these points urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant, the learned Tribunal has devoted all its attention to the ground of violation of Principles of Natural Justice and to the non-availability to show cause notice to which the appellant was required to make defence. Learned Counsel for the appellant had also urged the question of limitation in respect of the demands which were also not at all considered by the learned Tribunal. In these circumstances the learned Tribunal should have entertained the application dated 26-2-1996 and to consider the points raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant-petitioner and then to record a decision on merit, so far as the stay of the confiscation proceedings, imposition of fine of Rs. 1 crore and recovery of time barred demand was considered.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner now points out that this application dated 26-2-1996 is said to have been rejected but no copy of the order has so far been provided to him. Therefore it is not possible to ascertain whether the learned Tribunal has considered all the arguments raised in the application or has simply passed a cryptic order rejecting the application.