9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (1) TMI 384X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pal, ld. Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the impugned order is passed under section 35F of the Central Excise Act for the non-compliance of the stay order dated 8-01-1999 and in spite of giving personal hearing, no representation on behalf of the applicant was made and the proof of payment of the stay order was not produced. He further submits before passing the said order, no notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sioner (Appeals) on examination of record prima facie came to the conclusion that the issue involved for consideration are not entirely free from doubt and need to be examined at length on the basis of the facts available on record and appellant s submission on facts and law, which may be made by them during the appeal proceedings. They have produced some evidence on the plea of financial hardship ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the applicant has availed the opportunity given by passing the impugned order. 2. From the above, it is seen that while passing the impugned order, the letters written by the applicant acknowledged by the department are not at all dealt with in the impugned order. The said order in paragraph 2 does not disclose what was the evidence produced by the applicant regarding financial hardship. It also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ind and mechanically passes orders on stay application. Request for personal hearing to be considered as there is no bar or prohibition of granting the same. The Tribunal has also held in same line 2000 (115) E.L.T. 515 (Tri.) = 1999 (35) RLT 887 in the case of Entek IRD International (I) Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai II and 1999 (35) RLT 91 in the case of Naresh Kumar Kapoorchand Jain v. CCE, Airport, Mumb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
