AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.L. Sharma, J.—This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been directed against the rejection of the stay application which was rejected on 20-2-1995 by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. I have perused the impugned orders and find that the Tribunal has rejected the stay order merely on the ground that there is no prima facie case. The plea of financial hardship under proviso to Section 35F of Central Excises Act has not been considered at all though it was raised before and taken note of by the Tribunal. Therefore the impugned order of rejecting the stay petition is bad in law and cannot be sustained. However, the matter requires to be re-heard and decided by the Tribunal itself by considering the plea of financial hardship also. Therefore, there is nothing else to be adjudicated upon by this court in this writ petition.
This writ petition is therefore, finally disposed of at the admission stage and the impugned order dated 20-2-1995 rejecting the stay of the petitioner in second Appeal No. 606-607/94-NRB is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh hearing and decision on the stay application of the petitioner in second Appeal No. 606-607/94-NRB in the light of the observations made herein above.