1993 (10) TMI 96 - HC - Central Excise

Court upholds consent order, dismisses Letters Patent Appeals on Central Excise Duty demand

The court upheld the consent order and dismissed the Letters Patent Appeals challenging the Central Excise Duty demand. It emphasized that the parties had ... Appeal - Maintainability of Issues:1. Validity of the demand for Central Excise Duty.2. Interpretation of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985.3. Maintainability of the Letters Patent Appeals due to the consent order.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: The judgment pertains to two Letters Patent Appeals challenging orders demanding Central Excise Duty. The appellants argued that the demand was unwarranted and inconsistent with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in a specific case. The Single Judge stayed the orders and a consent order was later passed after hearing objections. The appellants contended that the Single Judge did not properly appreciate their arguments and the scope of the Act. They also argued that the unit in question was not a sick unit, and various other legal pleas were raised. However, the respondents argued that the consent order rendered the appeals not maintainable.Issue 2: The appellants contended that the Single Judge did not consider the legalities raised in the writ petitions and passed an order that bypassed legal issues. However, upon reviewing the impugned order, it was found that the parties had consented to seek redressal under the Sick Industrial Companies Act. The order allowed parties to proceed with recovery with the consent of the Board and provided the option to raise jurisdictional pleas or appeal against the Board's decision. The judgment emphasized that the parties had chosen to address their grievances through the statutory provisions.Issue 3: The core argument revolved around the maintainability of the Letters Patent Appeals due to the consent order. The respondents contended that the order was a consent order and, therefore, the appeals were not maintainable. The appellants argued that the consent was only for the disposal of the case and did not dictate the form of disposal. The judgment highlighted that the parties had agreed to seek redressal through the Board and could appeal its decision if aggrieved. Ultimately, the court dismissed the appeals as not maintainable, emphasizing that the consent order was passed in accordance with the law and did not warrant interference.In conclusion, the judgment addressed the validity of the Central Excise Duty demand, interpretation of the Sick Industrial Companies Act, and the maintainability of the appeals due to the consent order. The court upheld the consent order and dismissed the appeals while allowing the appellants to seek clarification from the Single Judge.