2000 (1) TMI 53

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 2.Shri I.C. Upadhyay, counsel for petitioner. Shri B.G. Neema, standing counsel for respondents. 3.These petitions are being heard at this stage by issuing rule and by consent, the rule returnable forthwith. By consent, these petitions are taken up for hearing and final disposal, in the interest of justice. 4.Both the advocates placed reliance on the judgment of Bombay High Court in the matter .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... laced reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India v. Jesus Sales Corporation reported in 1996 (83) E.L.T. 486 (S.C.). While passing order the Commissioner did not give reasons at all for justifying his conclusion, which has been assailed by these petitions. 6.The Commissioner (Appeals) while exercising powers under Section 35F of the Act, acts as quasi-judicial auth .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 7.In the interest of justice and for maintaining a clean stream of justice the orders will have to be set aside and the both the matters will have to be remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for disposal according to law and for passing a well reasoned order with appropriate application of judicial mind. 8.It was not proper on the part of the Commissioner (Appeals) to dismiss the appeals .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X