ASSOCIATED SWITCH GEARS PVT LTD Vs. CEGAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri A.P. Mathur, learned counsel for petitioner and Shishir Kumar, learned standing counsel for respondents and perused the record. Both the counsels agree that this writ petition be finally disposed of at the admission stage as it does not involve any question for adjudication by this court.

(2.) The petitioner had filed a Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 483 of 1995, M/s. Associated Switch Gears Pvt. Ltd. v. Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal and another, against the rejection of stay/waiver application by the respondent No.l in connection with the registration and hearing of the second appeal. This court was pleased to pass the following orders:

(3.) In the meantime the learned Tribunal, respondent No. 2 rejected the application of the petitioner by adhering to its earlier order directing also to deposit cash amount of Rs. 3,50,000/and to furnish bank guarantee for the remaining amount. Mr. A.P. Mathur learned counsel for petitioner made statement before this court and accordingly, this court disposed off the writ petition as infructuous. Now the petitioner has moved this court again by a fresh writ petition for seeking the direction to the respondent No. 1 to accept the surety bond by way of security bond on the ground that the security furnished by the petitioner was found subject to the charge of the State Bank of India and consequently it was rejected by the Tribunal and, therefore, the petitioner submitted a surety bond by way of security bond for the amount in question. The learned Tribunal however, has not disposed of this application and has not even rejected the surety bond. But the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. A.P. Mathur informs this court that the Tribunal demanded a clarification whether the security bond includes surety bond. This Court has no hesitation to give a clarification that the security bond also includes surety bond and the learned Tribunal should have accepted the surety bond without seeking any clarification when it has itself come to the view that the security furnished in respect of the fixed assets of the company, already charged in favour of the State Bank of India and further pledge of the assets thereof would not constitute a valid and sufficient security to cover up the amount in question.