9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 900X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rded its finding on the merit and more particularly within the provisions contained under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. The CESTAT should record its finding on the prima facie case as well as on the balance of convenience and inconvenience and the irreparable loss and injury to be caused to the petitioner and shall also take into account the interest of the Revenue at the time of passing any order on the waiver of the pre-condition deposit. - Court finds that the said order is not sustainable. The order impugned is quashed and is set aside. - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee. - W.P. No. 1087 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 25-3-2014 - Harish Tandon, J. Shri R. Raghavana and T. Chakraborty, for the Petitioner. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder is assailed before the Tribunal apart from other grounds that the statute provides for three adjournments and the authorities could not have proceeded in haste. The CESTAT while disposing of an application seeking waiver of pre-condition deposit proceeded on the basis that the petitioner has not refuted the averments made in the said show cause notice and the documents, which are filed before the CESTAT cannot be accepted in absence of any application in this regard. Apart from the aforesaid ground, my endeavour has failed to find out whether the CESTAT has recorded any other reasons for disposal of the said application. 2. Mr. Saraf, however, tried to impress upon the Court that the CESTAT did not commit any infirmity and/or illega ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it memo was given extensively containing all the documents and the authorities should have taken into consideration at the time of making final determination in a proceeding initiated on the basis of the show cause notice issued subsequently. The petitioner further says that the documents, which were already available in the record were intended to be filed before the CESTAT and, therefore, the CESTAT would not have refused to consider those documents on the plea that the same is not supported by any application for production of the additional evidence. 3. This Court finds that the CESTAT has not recorded any reason on the merit of the said application except on the above technicalities. Admittedly, the Assessing Officer passed an order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
