JUDGMENT K.L. Sharma, J.
1. Heard Shri A.P. Mathur ld. Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Shishir Kumar ld. Standing Counsel for Central Excise and perused the Writ Petition.
2. This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been directed against the order dated 22.8.1995 passed by three members of the Bench of Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi whereby on the application for stay-waiver in Second Appeal No. E/876/95-C, the petitioner has been directed to deposit Rs. 7,00,000/- within two months from the date of the order and thereupon the requirement to pre-deposit the balance amount of duty and penalty shall be deemed to have been waived and recovery proceedings shall remain stayed.
3. Ld. Counsel for petitioner contended that the cash deposit of seven lakhs has been ordered without considering the fiancial position and the fact of time barred demand. He has further contended that the demand should have been bifurcated between two units of the company functioning at Mohanlalganj, Lucknow and at Rae Bareilly.
4. I have perused the impugned order passed by the ld. Tribunal and find that all the contentions raised in the application for stay waiver have been considered and decided by the Tribunal. This Court while exercising power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot substitute its own finding in place of the finding recorded by the ld. Tribunal. Therefore, no interference is called for. However, it is for the petitioner to move necessary application before the ld. Tribunal for bifurcation of the demand payable by the two units of the company and also an application for furnishing security in place of cash deposit, and if application of applications are filed the ld. Tribunal will consider and decide the same, before passing final order in the appeal filed by assessee.
5. Subject to the above observations, this Writ Petition is finally disposed of at the admission stage.