SURYA ROSHNI LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner seeks to challenge an Order No. A/301/03/nb (SM), dated 18-2-2003 (Ann.-P/1), passed by the CEGAT in Appeal Nos. E/2382/01-NB (SM), E/co/131/02, E/co/323/02-NB (SM), which in turn arise out of an order passed in Appeal No. 413-CE/bpl/2001, dated 22-8-2001 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Bhopal.

(2.) HEARD Shri R. Nair, L. C. for petitioner and Shri T. N. Singh, learned Sr. Counsel for respondents.

(3.) IN view of the order that I propose to pass, I do not wish to burden my order with the detailed facts. In my opinion, it is not necessary to narrate them. It is also for the reason that short point is involved in the petitioner namely whether the Tribunal should have granted an adjournment to the petitioner on 18-2-2003 for arguing the appeal on merits or not? According to learned Counsel it was a fit case where an adjournment prayed for by the petitioner (respondent in appeal before the CEGAT) ought to have been granted in the larger interest of the parties and a case to that effect was made out. It was his submission that the petitioner was not indulging in any delaying tactics nor had sought any adjournment in past except the one which was being prayed for on that day (18-2-2003 ). Though learned Counsel for respondent Revenue opposed this prayer, in my view in the larger interest of the parties and keeping in view the settled observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal reported in AIR 1955 SC 425; I am inclined to accept the submissions pressed into service by the counsel appearing for the petitioner.