1992 (10) TMI 152

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 by not depositing the amount as directed in his earlier stay order or by executing the bank guarantee. 2. The learned Collector (Appeals) by his Stay Order No. 48/91, dated 4-12-1991, had held that :- "the demand has been confirmed on the basis of the approved classification list for which there is no indication that the same has been challenged in appeal. Therefore, irrespective of the merit of case, otherwise, the appellants did not have a prima facie case because of this reason. Since, however, the financial condition of the unit is very precarious, I dispense with the requirement of pre-deposit provided that the appellants make a deposit of Rs. 2 lakhs in cash and execute bank guarantee ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cause notice prior to the dismissal of the appeal and also that he was not justified in refusing to entertain the application for modification of the stay application. He further submitted that even the basic approval of classification list was without show cause notice and is nullity and therefore, the proceedings arising therefrom are bad in law and therefore, the learned Addl. Collector was not justified in rejecting their arguments on this aspect of the matter. In this connection, he relied on the ruling rendered by the Madras High Court in the case of Nuwood Pvt. Ltd. Madras v. Supdt. of Central Excise [1981 (8) E.L.T. 184] and Gujarat High Court in the case of Alembic Glass Industries Ltd. v. Union of India [1992 (59) E.L.T. 207] and ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l (P) Ltd. v. C.E.G.A.T. reported in [1991 (51) E.L.T. 543] had set aside the order of pre-deposit on the ground that when an appellant is having a good prima facie case being covered by another judgment, then pre-deposit and penalty ought to have been dispensed with. So is also the view of the Madras High Court in the case of T.N. Electricity Board v. C.E.G.A.T. [1991 (53) E.L.T. 555]. The Madras High Court in the case of Aluminium & Glose (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, reported in [1991 (55) E.L.T. 165] also granted relief to the petitioner whose application for modification of earlier stay order was not considered by the Tribunal, on the ground of financial hardship of the petitioners and the Court directed the appeal to be dis....