Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
V. K. Mehrotra and D. S. Sinha, JJ.
LUXCO ELECTRONICS - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA (UOI) - Respondents
Writ Petition . Of .
Decided On : 05/22/1987
Stay of Recovery - Customs Excise and Gold (Control) - The court quashed the order of the Tribunal and directed to hear the prayer for stay afresh and pass an order in accordance with law.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant sought stay of recovery of the amount directed to be paid by the Collector of Central excise, Allahabad. The Tribunal refused to grant stay and asked the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- in cash and secure the balance of the duty amount by way of Bank guarantee.
Finding of the Court:
The court quashed the order of the Tribunal and directed to hear the prayer for stay afresh and pass an order in accordance with law.
Issues: The appellant raised the plea that the demand was time barred, which was noticed by the Tribunal but not specifically addressed in its order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Tribunal was required to deal with the plea about the demand being barred by time, in a prima facie manner, in its order on the application made by the appellant for stay of the realization of the amount under challenge.
Final Decision: The court directed the Tribunal to hear the prayer for stay afresh and pass an order in accordance with law, allowing the parties to bring relevant decisions to the notice of the Tribunal. Costs were imposed on the parties.
( 2 ) ONE of the pleas which the appellant had taken before the Tribunal is that the demand was time barred. This ground has specifically been mentioned in the application for stay made by the petitioner before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has noticed this plea, in its order of April 22, 1987, but has not said anything specifically about it while dealing with the submission made before it. A matter similar to this arose before this. Court earlier also. In Hari Fertilizers v. Union of India and Ors. , 1985 (22) Excise Law Times page 301, a Division Bench of this Court in a similar situation took the view that the Tribunal was to deal with the plea about the demand being barred by time, though in a prima facie, manner, in its order on application made by the appellant before it for stay of the realisation of the amount under Challenge. Some other decisions taking similar view were also brought to our notice.
( 3 ) HAVING heard Shri A. P. Mathur for the petitioner and Sri N. B. Singh, Senior Standing Counsel for the Union of India,, we proceed to dispose of the petition finally today, as prayed by them, by quashing the order of the Tribunal and directing to hear the prayer for stay afresh and pass an order in accordance with law. Counsel for the parties will be free to bring to the notice of the tribunal. All such decisions upon which they wish to rely in this matter. Costs on parties.
.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
