9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (3) TMI 470X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri Devnath with A. Ghosh, Advocates, for the Petitioner. S/Shri R. Bharadwaj with S.K. Saha, Advocates, for the Respondent. [Order] - 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 directing the appellant to deposit 25% of the amount of duty confirmed and penalty imposed in the order in original dated 2nd March, 2010 on the ground that the order impugned was passed without dealing with the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ETC Limited (supra), though therein held invalid, postulates that - "From the above it is evident that though discretion is vested with the Appellate Authority to give personal hearing in the facts and circumstances of the particular case, before disposing of stay petitions, but this should 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 stipulates that in case of pre-deposit the authority should pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acts were not considered objectively and personal hearing was not granted, the order under challenge cannot be sustained and is, thus, set aside and quashed. The writ petition is allowed. 8. Therefore, the respondent No. 3 is directed to consider the stay application afresh and shall pass a reasoned order after giving the petitioners an opportunity of hearing. However, it is made clear that I have not gone into the merits of the case and all 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 A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
