Charkha Chemicals And Soaps Inds. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr.
1999 Latest Caselaw 619 Del

ORDER

1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 22nd December, 1998 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise (Appeals) on an application under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 moved by the petitioner for dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit. From the impugned order it is seen that by one common order, the authority has disposed of similar applications of 11 parties having different facts and different grounds for seeking waiver. There is no discussion of any sort nor there is any reasoning or basis for reaching the conclusion contained in the impugned order. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner this shows that the order has been passed in a mechanical manner and there is total non-application of mind.

2. The Commissioner (Appeals) while exercising power under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 acts as a quasi-judicial authority and the statutory function which he has to discharge envisages that the orders should at least show that there has been some application of mind. This is an important statutory function which cannot be performed by the officers in such a mechanical manner. The approach of the Commissioner (Appeals) in passing the impugned order has been totally cavalier and can be said to amount to failure to discharge the statutory function. It is also a case of complete negation of the principles of natural justice. We are unable to sustain the impugned order. The same is hereby quashed. The matter is remanded to the Commissioner, Central Excise (Appeals) for fresh consideration and decision of the application of the petitioner under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

3. The petition stands disposed of.