9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (7) TMI 644X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espondent. [Order per : S.L. Peeran, Member (J)]. Both the stay applications pertained to the same assessee which arise from two different orders passed by Commissioner (Appeals) dismissing both the appeals under provisions of Section 35F of the Act for non compliance of the Interim Stay order directing them to pre-deposit the amounts within one month from the date of receipt of the orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court of Madras in the judgment in M/s. ITC Ltd. v. CCE as reported in 2001 ECL 97 after a detailed discussion held that such orders are violative of principles of natural justice and that Section 35F of the Act read with Section 35A of the Act requires that assessees to be heard both on merits as well as on financial hardship before fixing the amounts for pre-deposit. Similar view was expressed b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere is a clear violation in terms of the above noted High Court judgment, therefore waiver of pre-deposit and stay granted and while doing so, we take up the appeal themselves and remand the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) by setting aside the impugned orders with a direction that he shall grant an opportunity of hearing to the appellants and consider both the prima facie case as well as fina ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
