UNION OF INDIA Vs. SYNTHETICS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants in both these appeals are hereby assailing correctness, propriety and legality of the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Bench of this Court by which the learned Judge decided W. P. Nos. 1333/97 [2000 (122) E. L. T. 338 (M. P.)] and 849/98.

(2.) SHRI Patankar while assailing the correctness and legality of the said judgments and orders submitted that the learned Judge did not take into consideration the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Suptd. of Central Excise, Jammu v. J. K. Cigarettes reported in 1996 (84) E. L. T. 412 (S. C ). He submitted further that in view of the provisions of Section 22 (1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, the duress, issued for the purpose of collection of Revenue by the Central Excise Department cannot be stayed. He submitted that the learned judge has done the same and, therefore, the said judgments and order need to be set aside by allowing these appeals.

(3.) SHRI Chaphekar pointed out the provisions of Section 22 of SICA and submitted that in view of the provisions of Section 22 (1) the duress is also to be stayed when the BIFR has taken cognizance of the petition presented by the alleged Sick Industry. Shri Chaphekar submitted that in addition to that, the BIFR pointed out in its judgment and order that the matter was under consideration for the purpose of preparation of the scheme. He submitted further that the challenge to such judgment and order by the appellant made before the AAIFR has also been dismissed. In view of that, Shri Chaphekar submitted that the appeals deserve to be dismissed.