1999 (4) TMI 81

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... -1999 (Exhibit `A' to the writ petition) by which the application of the petitioners for dispensation of the requirement of pre-deposit of duty under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, has been rejected and the petitioners have been directed to deposit the full amount of disputed duty and penalty on or before 30-3-1999 as a pre-condition for admission of the appeal. 2.The learned Couns .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ar, learned Counsel for the respondents, fairly stated that so far as the impugned order is concerned, he cannot defend the same because it is an unreasoned one. He stated that he would like to issue necessary instruction to the respondents to pass reasoned orders in future. He, therefore, stated that in the facts and circumstances of this case, this order may be set aside and the matter may be re .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... note that despite of such repeated observations, things have not improved. 7.In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the fair stance taken by the learned Counsel for the respondents, we set aside the impugned order with a direction to the Commissioner (Appeals) to give a hearing to the petitioners and after considering the submissions of the petitioners and the facts and circum .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X