1999 (7) TMI 88

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tances of the case, the matter is taken up for final hearing today. 3. This petition is filed for an appropriate writ, direction or order quashing and setting aside Stay Order No. 391 of 1999 (and Stay Order No. 392 of 1999) both dated 18th March 1999. 4. The case of the petitioner was that it was a public limited company engaged in the business of manufacturing plain paper copiers. It has factory at Gandhinagar. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner to pay excise duty contrary to law and though he was entitled to certain benefits on the basis of the law laid down by various High Courts, a demand in excess was made. Orders-in-Original were passed by the authorities which were carried before the appellate authority. Along wi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....posit by 6-4-1999. Subject to the deposit of this amount, the balance amount of duty Rs. 35,13,023/- confirmed against the firm shall stand waived till the final disposal of the appeal. However, if the appellants fail to comply with these directions, their main petition shall be liable to be dismissed for non-compliance of Section 35F ibid." Mr. Dave, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is non-application of mind on the part of the appellate authority in not granting interim relief as prayed for by the petitioner. He submitted that relevant decisions were Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. v. S.N. Guha Thakurta, Supdt. of Central Excise and Others, 1977 (1) E.L.T. (J 14) and Indo-National Limited, Nellore-4 & Or....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... not direct, the appellate authority to afford personal hearing in light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. M/s. Jesus Sales Corporation, 1996 (83) E.L.T. 486 (S.C.) = JT 1996 (3) SC 597 and followed by the Division Bench of this Court in D.C.W. Limited & Ors. v. Commissioner (Appeals) & Ors., 1998 (97) E.L.T. 424 (Guj.) = 1997 (2) GLR 913. So far as non-consideration of trade notice is concerned, obviously there is non-consideration of the same as there is no mention in the stay order impugned in this petition. It also appears that this is a third round in which the petitioner has to approach this Court. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the grievance voiced by the petitioner against the ....