1998 (6) TMI 344

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... [Order per : K.S. Venkataramani, Vice President]. The application is for dispensing with the pre-deposit of Rs. 2,46,694.80 and of a penalty Rs. 5,000/-. 2. The ld. Counsel Shri R.J. Parekh for the applicant submits that in this case the Commissioner (Appeals) has in the impugned order dismissed their appeal without hearing. They were granted a hearing on 5-1-1998. On 3-1-1998, the appell .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ion, we find that through the applicant has claimed that they sought adjournment of the date of hearing fixed by the Commissioner (Appeals), there is nothing on record in the impugned order to support the contention. However, the impugned order is not one on the merits but is only an order of dismissal for non-compliance the requirement of pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. W .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X