ORDER K.L. Sharma, J.
1. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the Stay Order No. 39/95-D, dated 15-3-1995 served on 8-4-1995 passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, and for issue of a writ of mandamus directed the learned Tribunal to decide the appeal of the petitioner without insisting on any pre-deposit for recovery of adjudged amount of duty and penalty during the pendency of the appeal.
2. I have heard Shri A.P. Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Vikram Gulati, learned standing counsel for the respondents.
3. The petitioners are engaged in the manufacture of Leather Footwear without the aid of power and were filing proper declaration to the Central Excise Department to that effect. However, a case was registered on the petitioner on 25-2-1987 alleging that the petitioner had failed to take the Central Excise Licence and the Superintendent Central Excise, Agra held that there was no evasion of duty and dropped the proceeding. On 29-10-1992 a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise Agra for confiscation of 200 pairs of shoes seized by the Central Excise Officer on 16-5-1992 and 19-5-1992. The Assistant Commissioner Central Excise, Agra ordered the confiscation of seized shoes and confirmed the demand of duty on 14-5-1993. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Collector Central Excise who was pleased to confirm the said order. The petitioner then submitted the second appeal before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi and also moved application for stay and waiver application which were rejected by the learned Tribunal and it is likely that the appeal be also dismissed for non-compliance of the condition of pre-deposit. He therefore, preferred this writ petition for suitable direction.
4. In this writ petition learned counsel for petitioner Mr. Mathur has contended that the learned Tribunal has not considered the plea of the petitioner that the demand of duty and penalty was barred by limitation and the order of rejection of stay and waiver application is not justified in view of the finding recorded in favour of the appellant by Collector Central Excise.
5. This court does not consider necessary to call for counter affidavit from the respondents as this writ petition can be finally disposed of at the admission stage with suitable direction.
6. After hearing the submissions of both the sides, I am also of the view that no useful purpose will be served by keeping this writ petition pending in this court and to stay the proceedings in the appeal pending before the learned Tribunal. The grievance of the petitioner can be redressed if they are directed to file fresh application taking the plea that the demand of duty and penalty was barred by limitation and the Tribunal is permitted to dispose of the stefy application and also to expedite the hearing of the appeal.
7. Cosnsequently, this writ petition is finally disposed of with the direction that the petitioner may file fresh application of stay/waiver raising the legal and factual plea within a period of 15 days and thereupon the learned Tribunal shall hear and decide the application after giving full opportunity to the petitioner or to decide the appeal itself without compelling pre-deposit or recovery of allegedly time barred demand of duty within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.