ORDER
I.J. Rao, Member (T)
1. We heard Shri B.B. Gujral, the learned Advocate. He submitted that the impugned order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) is not prima facie, sustainable as he dismissed the appeal without passing orders on the Stay Application which was made on 28.10.1987 alongwith the appeal. He pointed out that not only the Stay Application was made but also a number of reminders were sent to the Collector in spite of which no order was passed on the request for stay. He argued that in view of this, order is not sustainable.
2. Shri L.C. Chakraborty, the learned JDR stated that there is no mention of the Stay Application in the impugned order and this indicates that most probably the Collector lost sight of the Stay Application. He submitted that it would be fair to set aside the order and remand the matter to the Collector, as suggested by the learned Advocate, for consideration of the Stay Application and passing fresh orders.
3. We have perused the documents and considered the arguments of both sides. It appears that the Collector due to some reason overlooked the Stay Application completely and failed to pass proper orders on the same. Therefore the impugned order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, and consequently cannot be sustained. We set it aside and remand the matter to the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) for fresh decision which should include consideration of the Stay Application (including a hearing if asked for) and then pass fresh orders under the law.
4. Shri Gujral requests for early decision by the Collector for which he seeks a direction. We do not feel that such a direction is necessary. The Collector is expected to take as prompt action as possible.
5. The Stay Application and the appeal are thus being allowed by way of remand.
6. Pronounced in open court.
