Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 571 (GUJ)

Narmada Bio-Chem Ltd. v. Union of India

2017-03-14

A.S.SUPEHIA, HARSHA DEVANI

body2017
JUDGMENT : Harsha Devani, J. 1. Rule. Ms. Avani Mehta, learned senior standing counsel waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondents No. 2 and 3. 2. The principal grievance voiced in the present petition is that against the order dated 30.03.2016 passed by the Principal Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs, the petitioners had preferred an appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") and that along with the appeal, the petitioners have also preferred a stay application, which for some reason or the other has not been decided till date. It is further the case of the petitioners that the Division Bench of the Tribunal is not available and is not likely to be available for some time. However, pursuant to the order which is subject matter of challenge before the Tribunal, the respondents seek to invoke the bank guarantee and enforce the bond submitted by the petitioners. It is the case of the petitioners that if the bank guarantee is invoked and the bond is enforced, the stay application filed by the petitioners before the Tribunal would be rendered infructuous. 3. Heard Mr. Uday Joshi, learned advocate for M/s. Trivedi & Gupta, learned advocates for the petitioners, who has reiterated the contentions raised in the memorandum of petition. Ms. Avani Mehta, learned senior standing counsel for the respondents is not in a position to dispute the fact that the Division Bench of the Tribunal is not available and hence, the stay application filed by the petitioners is not being heard and decided. 4. In view of the aforesaid position which is prevailing, namely, that the Division Bench of the Tribunal which is required to adjudicate the appeal and decide the stay application filed by the petitioners, is not available, the stay application filed by the petitioners is not being heard and decided. However, the respondents appear to be resorting to coercive measures for the purpose of executing the order which is subject matter of challenge before the Tribunal. In the opinion of this court, in the absence of the Division Bench of the Tribunal, the petitioners for no fault of their own, cannot be rendered remediless. However, the respondents appear to be resorting to coercive measures for the purpose of executing the order which is subject matter of challenge before the Tribunal. In the opinion of this court, in the absence of the Division Bench of the Tribunal, the petitioners for no fault of their own, cannot be rendered remediless. Under the circumstances, the court is of the view that the interests of justice would be served if the petition is disposed of with a direction that till the stay application filed by the petitioners is heard and decided by the Tribunal, the respondents shall not enforce condition No. 1 of paragraph-8 of the impugned order. 5. In the above view of the matter, the petition is disposed of with a direction that till the stay application filed by the petitioners is heard and decided by the Tribunal, the respondents shall not enforce condition No. 1 of paragraph-8 of the impugned order. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.