AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.C. Pratap, J.—Rule, returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service.
This petition challenges the legality and validity of two orders both dated 23rd October 1989, part of Exhibits E & F respectively. Turning to these two orders, one finds the same to be as short and cryptic as ever and passed purely and simply upon an earlier adjudication order dated 30th September 1989. Save and except placing reliance simpliciter upon the earlier order dated 30th September 1989, there is absolutely no independent reason in support of the presently impugned orders dated 23rd October 1989.
Now, against the earlier order dated 30th September 1989 the petitioners have preferred appeal to the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay. Along with the said appeal an application for stay has also been filed. And I understand that both the appeal and the application are pending before the Appellate Authority.
Mr. Vahanvati appearing for the petitioners states that against the presently impugned orders dated 23rd October 1989 also the petitioners will be preferring appeals to the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay, along with stay applications. In the circumstances, he is justified in submitting that since the presently impugned orders are based simpliciter upon the earlier order dated 30th September 198.9, it is but fair and just that no action should be taken against the petitioners pursuant to the presently impugned orders of 23rd October 1989 until the legality and validity of the earlier order dated 30th September 1989 is considered and decided by the Appellate Authority. He submits that in any event of the matter, no action should be taken till the decision on the stay application in the appeal of the petitioners, pending before the Appellate Authority.
As the presently impugned orders are based simpliciter upon the earlier order of 30th September 1989, the legality and validity whereof is challenged in appeal there from before the Appellate Authority, directions as below are being issued in the ends of justice.
Mr. Vahanvati states that appeals against the presently impugned orders will be preferred latest by 2nd January 1990. Counsel appearing for the respondents states that these appeals along with the pending appeal will all be decided by the Appellate Authority by end of January 1990.
In the circumstances, the following order is passed on this petition:
(a) The petitioners should prefer appeals against the presently impugned orders dated 23rd October 1989, part of Exhibit E and Exhibit F respectively, latest by 2nd January 1990.
(b) The Appellate Authority viz., the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay, should hear and decide these appeals along with the pending appeal against the order dated 30th September 1989 by 31st January 1990 after notice to and hearing the petitioners in that behalf.
(c) Pending the hearing and disposal of these appeals, the respondents should maintain status quo regarding further proceedings pursuant to these orders subject matter of the above appeals.
(d) In view of the aforesaid order, the detention memo dated 13th December 1989, Exhibit C, is set aside and detention raised.
Rule is made absolute in terms aforesaid but, in the circumstances, with no order as to costs.