A.Chakrabarti, J. - (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Shushil Harksali, learned Counsel for the respondents.
(2.) The petitioners contends that the impugned order is bad as it has not been passed taking into consideration profit and loss account of the company and wrongfully showing a profit although profit and loss account shows actually a net loss of substantial amount. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that such wrong reading of the profit and loss account (wrongfully described in the impugned order as balance sheet) lead to the impugned order refusing total exemption of deposits under Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and reference has been made to another order by the same Tribunal in respect of the petitioner company (Annexure 11 to the writ petition) wherein the petitioner company was considered as sick unit and on that basis total exemption was granted though the claim therein was of an amount much larger than the amount involved herein.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the respondents disputed the contention of the petitioner and said that partial exemption has been granted exercising discretionary power protecting the interest of the respondents and the said order is valid. The learned Counsel for the respondents expressed apprehension that total exemption will cause serious prejudice to the interest of the respondents as the decision of the appeal will be then delayed by the petitioner and the respondents will be suffering total loss as assets will be disposed of.;