2003 (5) TMI 70

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... (Annexure P. 5) passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Ludhiana declining the petitioner's prayer for waiver of requirement of depositing the disputed amount as a condition precedent to the entertaining of appeal filed by it against the order passed by the adjudicating authority under Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short, 'the 1944 Act'). 2.The main ground on which the petitioner h .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ff Act, 1985. By an order dated 28-2-2002, Additional Commissioner (P V), Chandigarh confirmed the demand of Rs. 4,38,898/- raised against the petitioner under Section 11A of the 1944 Act and also levied penalty of an equal amount. By another order dated 27-6-2002, the same authority confirmed the demand of Rs. 6,47,584/- under Section 11A of the 1944 Act and imposed penalty to the tune of an equi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... als) shows that he has not, at all, considered the issue of hardship while deciding the petitioner's prayer for waiver and also over-looked the fact that in an identical matter, his predecessor had waived the requirement of pre-deposit of penalty in its entirety. 7.Hence, the writ petition is allowed. Order Annexure P. 5 is quashed with a direction to the Commissioner (Appeals) to pass fresh ord .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X