JUDGMENT
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.
1. Heard Sri V.K. Singh, Senior Standing Counsel for the Union of India.
2. The petitioner has come forward with the following averment. The Assistant Collector Central Excise, Saharanpur, has passed two orders under Section 11-A against the petitioner. The first order is dated 5.3.90 bearing reference (order in original No. 62/90 Dem./16/89) confirming demand of Rs. 15,71.298,48 p. The second order is dated 16.7.90 bearing reference (order in original No. 219/90/Dem.27/89) confirming a demand in a sum of Rs.3,32,796.01 p. He says that against both the orders he filed appeals within the prescribed periods of limitation. The appeal against the first mentioned order was filed in April and the appeal against the second mentioned order was filed in September 1991 respectively. He says that appeals are accompanied by stay applications. He further says that the appeal against the first mentioned order was filed before the Collector (Appeals), Delhi which was later transferred to Collector (Appeals), Allahabad and again transfered to Collector (Appeals), Ghaziabad. So far as the appeals against the second mentioned order is concerned, it was filed before the Collector (Appeals), Allahabad which has since been transferred to Collector, Ghaziabad. The petitioner further says that none of the Appellate Authorities have passed orders on the stay applications filed in the said cases.
3. In She circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:
The Collector (Appeals) shall pass appropriate orders on stay applications as expeditiously as possible, not later than two months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him, by the petitioners. Pending disposal of the stay applications the demand, of the aforesaid disputed amount of duty is stayed. It is, however, made clear that if no such application has been filed as averred by the petitioner or if any orders have already been passed on the stay applications, this order shall not operate.
It is further directed that within one week from today the petitioner shall produce two certified copies of this order before the Collector (Appeals), Ghaziabad, in default whereof this order shall cease to be operative after one week.
4. The writ petition is disposed of with above directions.
5. Certified copies of this order shall be given to learned Counsel for the parties on payment of usual charges by tomorrow.
6. We find that in many matters, a complaint is being made that the Appellate Collectors are not passing orders nor are they disposing of the stay applications filed in appeals before them for months together. At the same time, coercive proceedings are being taken for collecting the disputed duty. The Central Board of Indirect Taxes has itself issued circulars, some of which have been brought to our notice, saying that for a period of three or four months from the date of the order, recovery of the disputed tax shall not be effected. Even otherwise it is just and proper that stay applications are disposed of or some orders are passed thereon within a reasonable time of their filing, i.e., within about a month. Undue delay in passing orders on stay applications and proceeding with recovery of the disputed tax at the same time, is giving rise to these writ petitions. This would obviate filing of unnecessary writ petitions before this Court and would also be in the interest of justice and revenue. We hope that the authorities concerned shall look into this matter and issue necessary instructions.
7. A copy of this order may be communicated to the Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi.