9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (10) TMI 271X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hri H.P.S. Ghuman, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per: T.S. Thakur, C.J. (Oral)]. - Aggrieved by an order of adjudication dated 8-10-2008 passed against it, the petitioner-company preferred appeal No. 733-CE/APPL/CHD/2008/2000 before the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Chandigarh. The appeal was accompanied by an application seeking waiver of pre-deposit required in terms of Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erms of orders dated 13-2-2009 and 6-7-2009 had not been made by the petitioner. 3. When the matter appears to have gone back to the Commissioner (Appeals) pursuant to the direction issued by this Court, the Commissioner (Appeals) was of the view that the appeal having been already dismissed by him before passing of the order by this Court dated 30-7-2009, he could not legally recall the dismissa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... directed to re-examine the matter afresh, the Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have recalled the order of dismissal of the appeal and reconsidered the matter in obedience to the order passed by this Court and passed a fresh order in accordance with law instead of considering himself handicapped in the matter and seeking recall of order passed by this Court. Alternatively, it was contended that eve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns for waiver of pre-deposit and directed passing of fresh orders upon reconsideration of the matter. The Commissioner (Appeals) appears to have taken a hyper technical view of the matter in considering himself powerless in recalling an order which was no longer sustainable in the light of the order passed by this Court. He appears to have overlooked the fact that the very basis on which the Commi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e was no reason why the order of dismissal should not be quashed. 6. We accordingly allow this writ petition, quash order dated 28-7-2009 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and direct that request of the petitioner for waiver of pre-deposit be considered afresh in the light of the earlier order passed by us on 30-7-2009. Consequently, CM No. 15157 of 2009 filed by the Commissioner (Appeals) see ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
