AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.H. Kapadia, J.—By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner seeks to challenge order dated 18th January, 1999 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai, rejecting petitioner''s application for stay/waiver.
Since the controversy involved in the present writ petition is a narrow controversy, both the learned Advocates appearing for the parties state that the matter can be disposed of at the stage of admission. Hence Rule is issued. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, writ petition taken up for hearing and final disposal.
In the impugned order, we find that no reasons have been given for refusing dispensation of the condition of pre-deposit u/s 35-F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The order passed is a stereotype order. Even prima facie, reasoning requiring the assessee to pre-deposit the duty amount has not been given. Under the above circumstances, the impugned order is hereby set aside. The Commissioner is accordingly directed to consider the petitioner''s application for stay/waiver afresh and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law within four (4) weeks from today.
Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of with no order as to costs.