Mahendra Engineering Works vs Collector of Central Excise

The relief prayed for in all the writ petitions are same and hence a common order is passed. The relief prayed for is to comply with the orders of

the Collector of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals), Trichy setting aside the order of the lower authority and held that the petitioners will be

eligible to the benefits of Notification 64/86 and received stampings and lamination under Chapter X procedure and to direct the second

respondent to grant L6 Licence to the petitioner. It seems these orders were passed in August, 1991. In pursuance of the orders the petitioners

filed applications in form A.L. 6 in September, 1991 to the third respondent for grant of licence in compliance with the orders of the Appellate

Authority. Since the petitioners have not been favoured with any reply and on the ground that the respondents have not taken any action on the

request, the petitioners are before me.

After hearing the arguments of Mr. Sashidharan, learned counsel for the petitioners, it seems the petitioner has been informed orally that the

directions of the Appellate Authority would not be complied with since the Department has filed an appeal against the order of the Appellate

Authority before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Authority, hereinafter called the CEGAT. It is stated by the learned counsel

for the petitioner that till date the petitioners have not been informed of any such appeal and till date no order of stay has also been passed by

CEGAT by way of suspending the orders which are still in force. Learned counsel contends that on the principles laid down by the Apex Court of

the Land in Union of India and others Vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd., that judicial discipline would require that the authorities are bound

by the decision of the Tribunal or the Appellate Authority and as such wants this Court to issue a writ of mandamus as prayed for.

Notice of motion has been ordered by me on 4-2-1992. The learned counsel appearing for the Department informs this Court that the he needs

some more time to find out what has been pending before the CEGAT. It is true that the petitions are coming up for the first time after notice. But

in view of the orders which are going to be passed. I do not think any time should be given to the respondents. Instead of the prayer asked for in

these writ petitions suffice to direct the respondents to comply with the orders of the Appellate Authority passed in May, 1991 and issue licence to

the petitioners as per the orders of the Appellate Authority if no stay has been obtained by the Department before the CEGAT so far. It is well

settled that pendency of appeals alone will not do unless an order of suspension of stay has been obtained by the Department against the orders of

the Appellate Authority in these cases. The order has been as early as in May, 1991 and after receipt of the orders in August, 1991, the petitioners

have applied for the licence. Now more or less six months have elapsed and if the Department has not chosen to file appeal and obtain stay from

the Appellate Authority, I am of the view that the principle laid down by the Apex Court of the Land in Union of India and others Vs. Kamlakshi

Finance Corporation Ltd., has to be applied and the Authority should follow unreservedly the orders of the Appellate Authority. The first

respondent is directed to pass orders on or before 1-4-1992. The writ petitions are ordered accordingly.