HUKUMCHAND ROLLING MILL Vs. CCE A

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER's grievance is that even though it has preferred an appeal before respondent No. 1, against the order passed by respondent No. 2, some time in the month of July, 1997, along with an application for stay, but the same have not been taken up for consideration.

(2.) SHRI B. G. Neema appearing for the respondents submits that respondent No. 1 is now taking up appeals according to serial number and is giving preference to those appeals in which directions have been given by the Court. He further submits that there is no reason why respondent No. 1 should not take up petitioner's appeal if an application for urgent hearing of the same is made. Shri Upadhyaya then submitted that application for urgent hearing has also been submitted, but even then the appeal has not been taken up for consideration.

(3.) IN this view of the matter I direct respondent No. 1 to take up petitioner's appeal as also the application for grant of stay within a period of three weeks from the date of communication of this order. It is expected that within the said period specified herein respondent shall take up petitioner's appeal as also the stay application. It is further directed that during the aforesaid period of three weeks, respondents shall not take any coercive measures against the petitioner.