AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
3 paragraphs · 160 wordsM.C. Agarwal, J.—By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenged an order dated 23.3.1998 passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in Appeal No. E/S/474/98-N.B. under the proviso to Section 35F of the Central Excise and Salt Act, whereby, it directed the petitioner who is appellant before the Tribunal in the said appeal to deposit a sum of Rs. 4 lacs.
When this petition was filed this Court by an interim order dated 11.8.1998 directed the Tribunal to dispose of the appeal within a period of two months without insisting on the pre-deposit. Sri Piyush Agarwal, learned Counsel for the petitioner informs that the said appeal has since been decided and therefore, the cause of action does not survive. Sri Surya Prakash, learned standing counsel for the respondent does not controvert the statement.
In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed as having become infructuous.