9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (8) TMI 656X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ls before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai and also applications for waiver of pre-deposit of the sums and stay of recovery thereof. The Commissioner (Appeals) who heard them on their stay applications made the following order :- 2. I have considered the submission made by the appellant in the request for grant of stay/waiver of pre-deposit and also the findings contained in the Assistant Commissioner s order. Prima facie I find that, the issues involved for consideration are not entirely free from doubt and need to be examined at length on the basis of facts available on record and appellant s submissions on facts and law which may be made by the appellants in support of their claim during appeal proceedings. I also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 11th January, 1999, which is a primary requisite under the Law, once an order under Section 35F is issued. As such these appeals cannot be considered on merits. Hence the appeals stand dismissed for non compliance of this office stay order dated 11th January, 1999. Against this order the assessees have filed seven appeals and the present seven stay applications. The reason for filing more appeals than the number of contested orders was that the procedural requirements at the material time required one appeal to be filed per show cause notice. 4. In these stay applications the claim has been made that in each case the assessees had strong prima facie case on merits and that the assessees were passing through severe finan cial crisis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e-deposit of the sums would amount to financial hardship. 6. We also heard Shri Deepak Kumar for the Revenue. 7. We have carefully seen the two judgments cited before us. In the Ceat case the Government Counsel had himself admitted that the order was an unreasoned order. In the second judgment the Hon ble Court observed that in the order impugned before them there was no reason given for refusing dispensation of pre-deposit. In the light of the judgments we have examined the order dated 11-1-1999. On perusal of the extract above and the reading of paragraph 2 thereof it would appear that before making this order the Commissioner had gone into issues involved for consideration as also the claim for financial hardship and had thereafter f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... application had been accepted by the learned Commissioner. In the absence of the letter summoning them for hearing in the appeal preferred before us, we are unable to divine as to the reasons for which the assessees were summoned by the Commissioner (Ap peals). When the assessees were aware that in terms of para 3 of the order dated 11-1-1999 extracted above, their petition would be dismissed in the event of non-deposit, in the absence of any modification in writing, they were not entitled to presume that the Commis sioner had withdrawn his earlier order. 10. The provisions of Section 35F require that the contested sums be deposited before the appeal is taken up for hearing. The provi so thereof is an exception to be used with caution. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
