R.K.Gulati, J. - (1.) On the allegations that the petitioner had removed certain stocks of Biri without payment of duty during the period November, 1979 to January, 1982 and had thereby evaded excise duty leviable thereon to the tune of Rs. 1,77,607.43 P. the Additional Collector, Central Excise, Allahabad, vide his adjudication dated 26-12-1990, required the petitioner to pay the said amount and a penalty of Rs. 30,000/-. As against that order, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, which is pending decision. The petitioner also filed an application before the appellate authority, seeking stay of the disputed amounts, which was granted in part by the Tribunal by its order dated 31st December, 1991, inasmuch as, it directed the petitioner to deposit Rs. 80,000/- only within two weeks and the balance of the amount was stayed. However, the petitioner did not make the deposit and made another application before the Tribunal for review of its order on the ground that despite his efforts he could not arrange the amount of Rs. 80,000/- which he was required to deposit and his financial condition did not permit him to make the deposit. The review application was rejected by the Tribunal by its order dated 11-6-1992 but it once again directed the petitioner to make the deposit of Rs. 80,000/- within a period of two weeks from the date of the review order. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition.
(2.) We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the Standing Counsel for Union of India, representing the respondents.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner urged that the Tribunal while making its earlier order dated 31-12-1991 did not address itself to the primary considerations relevant for deciding the stay-cum-waiver application. While elaborating the argument, the learned Counsel urged that the Tribunal had failed to consider whether the proceedings giving rise to the appeal were barred by time and whether the petitioner was in a position to make the payment of Rs. 80,000/-. Further, the Tribunal also failed to notice that the adjudication made by the Additional Collector, which was the subject matter of appeal, suffered from serious infirmities inasmuch as the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of cross-examination.;