Sakhee Dyeing and Printing Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs Union of India (UOI)

B.J. Shethna, J.—Both these petitions are disposed of by this common order as they are arising out of the common order dated 26-3-2004 (Annexure-A) passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Regional Bench at Mumbai (for short "the Tribunal") in stay application Nos. E/S/2112 and 2113/03 filed in Appeal Nos. E/3067 & 3068/03.

At the outset, it may be stated that Mr. Nanavati, learned Counsel for the petitioners, in both these petitions stated at the Bar that the petitioners have fully deposited the amount of duty before the learned appellate Tribunal, but due to its poor financial condition, the petitioner was not able to deposit penalty amount. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned common order dated 26-3-2004 passed by the learned Tribunal dismissing both these stay applications be quashed and set aside and the learned Tribunal be directed to entertain the appeals of the petitioner and decide them on merits. It is a matter of discretion of the Tribunal to pass conditional stay order, therefore, this court would ordinarily like to interfere with the impugned common order dated 26-3-2004 passed by the learned Tribunal in these writ petitions.

However, there is a lot of force in the submission of Mr. Nanavati, learned Counsel for the petitioners that in both these petitions the impugned order passed by learned Tribunal is totally a non-speaking order, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside. Having gone through the order passed by the learned Tribunal. Mr. Malkan, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents was hardly in a position to defend the same. The Hon''ble Supreme Court in case of Mehsana Dist. Co-op. Milk P.U. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (UOI), has observed that the Tribunal has to give some reasons while passing the order on stay application. A bare look at the impugned common order dated 26-3-2004 passed by the Tribunal, it is clear that no reasons whatsoever were assigned by the learned Tribunal while dismissing the stay applications.

In view of the above discussion, both these petitions are allowed and impugned common order dated 26-3-2004 passed by the learned Tribunal dismissing both the stay applications i.e. stay application Nos. E/S/2112 and 2113/03 filed in Appeal Nos. E/3067 & 3068/03 is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned Tribunal with a request to decide both the stay applications by a brief reasoned order dealing with all the contentions raised by the petitioners in it. We are sure, that while deciding the stay applications afresh, the learned Tribunal may also keep in mind the fact that the petitioner had already deposited the entire amount of duty be failed to comply with the condition of depositing outstanding amount of penalties.

With these observations, both these petitions are allowed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.