9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (3) TMI 470X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder] - The Court: Let Vakalatnama filed on behalf of the respondents be kept with the records. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner No. 1, a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and the petitioner No. 2, Senior Manager - Taxation of the petitioner No. 1 have challenged the order passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise (Appeal-I), Kolkata, respondent No. 3 d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ales Corporation (supra) was delivered in the facts of that particular case and cannot have universal application. 3. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that since statute does not postulate compliance of the principles of natural justice while considering an application for pre-deposit, order passed is just and proper. 4. It is evident that direction was passed upon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld be more of an exception and not the normal rule. Commissioner (Appeals) do not commit any irregularity if they dispose of the petitions for dispensation of pre-deposit without hearing advocates or parties concerned. They must, however, in such cases pass a reasoned order in an objective manner considering the facts as given in the presentation/stay petition." 5. As seen, the said circular stip ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ust depend to a great extent on the fact and circumstances of that case, the frame-work of the statute under which the enquiry is held. The old distinction between a Judicial Act and an Administrative Act has withered away. Even an administrative order which involves civil consequences must be consistent with the rules of natural justice. Expression 'civil consequences' encompasses in fraction of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l points are left open to be dealt with by the said Respondent No.3. 9. Before I part, I am constrained to observe that the said respondent in an identical matter moved today being W.P.No. 4628(W) of 2010 (Reckitt & Col man of India Ltd. & Anr. v. Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeal-I), Kolkata & Anr.) had passed an order which is virtually a photocopy of the impugned order. 10. Since the wri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
