9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (9) TMI 256X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : I.J. Rao, Member (T)]. - In effect this application is one seeking modification of an earlier stay order dated 30-8-1989 passed by the Bench. It is treated as such. 2. Shri Gujral the learned Advocate argued on a number of grounds. For reasons that will be clear a little further we are not going into any of the grounds. Consideration of those grounds is not necessary for the purpose of this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecover duty for more than six months, alleging violation of Rules, suppression etc. on the part of the appellants should have been, legally, signed and issued only by the Collector and not any other authority. Shri Gujral cited a judgment of the Gujarat High Court Gujarat State Fertilizer Company Ltd. v. Union of India [1989 (34) E.L.T. 442 (Guj.)] to support his argument. The learned Advocate gav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5. Shri Tayal submits that a Bench of the Tribunal having decided the stay application earlier, the present application could be considered only in respect of financial hardship and not on the basis of merits. Shri Tayal also submits that even if a show cause notice is void the subsequent proceedings will not necessarily be void and seeks to rely on a judgment of the Superme Court in State of Ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e interests of justice matters have to be heard again and again. Such matters would be very few and the present matter is one of such exceptional nature. 6A. These proceedings are in effect, an examination of the necessity to modify the earlier orders of the Tribunal. The Gujarat High Court judgment, and the series of judgments cited by the learned Advocate cannot be lost sight of. In the light o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
