ORDER

Per Harish Chander:

Misc. Application

By the present application the applicants have made a prayer for restoration of the stay application No. E/Stay/697/94-D. Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Id. Advocate appeared on behalf of the applicants and pleaded that the stay application was dismissed for non-prosecution and she had filed an application for adjournment for the stay matter as the applicants intended to file more papers. She pleaded that she was under the bonafide belief that she had applied for adjournment and as such she did not appear on the date of hearing. She pleaded that in case the stay application is not restored the applicants shall suffer an irrepairable loss and even there is no bar for filing the fresh stay application. Shri Mohan Lal, Id. JDR who appeared on behalf of the respondent has no objection for restoration of the stay application.

2. We have heard both sides and have gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. The applicants had applied for adjournment vide application dated 20th July, 94. We have perused the application which was received in the Registry on 20th July, 94. There is no negligence on the part of the applicants. We are satisfied that the applicants were preventive for sufficient cause for non-appearance. Accordingly, we restore the stay application to its original number.

Stay & Appeal

3. The appellants have filed an appeal being aggrieved from the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh. The said appeal was presented in the Registry on 27th day of May, 1994. A stay application was also filed. Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Id. advocate appeared on behalf of the appellants. She pleaded for dispensation of the duty amount of Rs. 1,87,791-25 and penalty of Rs.40,000/ -. She pleaded that the Collector had discussed in his order of the present demand pertains to the period 1-10-86 to 31-3-87 and the classification list No. 148/86 is effective from 2-4-86. The same was approved and was valid upto 31 st July, 1988 and there were subsequent lists. She drew the attention of the Bench to the Order-in-Original dated 11th June, 92 passed by Shri Y.D. Bhanga which appears on pages 23 to 27 of the paper book and thereafter, another Order-in-Original which is at pages 30 to 35 of the paper book dated 24th July, 92. The order dated 11th June, 92 pertains to the period October, 1989 to March, 1990 and the order dated 24th July, 92 pertains to classification list Nos. 17,42,105,125/90-91,73,2,186/91-92 w.e.f. 11th July, 89, 1st April, 90, 10th April, 90, 25th July, 90, 19thJune,91 and 25th July, 91 and 19th October, 91 respectively. She argued that the Order-in-Original No. 6/CE/AC/D/92 dated 11th June, 92/16th June, 92 was disposed of by the Collector (Appeals) by order-in-appeal No.42/4992 dated 20th October, 92 and also the order-in-appeal No. 1020 dated 29-12-92 which appears at pages 32 to 38 of the paper-book. She pleaded that the Collector (Appeals) had remanded the matter for the later period on the ground of denial of Principle of Natural Justice. She drew the attention of the Bench to pages 53 and 54 of the paper-book where the appellants request for cross examination of the Chemical Examiner had been rejected and the Collector had not permitted the cross examination of the witness vis-a-vis Chemical Examiner. She pleaded that there is denial of Principles of Natural Justice. She also argued that since for the earlier period prima facie the appellants had a goods case on merit as well as on limitation as the show cause notice is dated 30th August, 91 for the period 1st August, 82 to 31st March, 87. She argued that the appellants had filed classification list which were duly approved for the earlier period and there is a dispute on classification as well as valuation. She argued that the classification was to be decided by the Assistant Collector and on being asked by the Collector for the transfer of proceedings the appellant's then counsel had given no objection for the transfer of