Waiver of interest on warehoused goods requires a speaking order from the competent authority; a mere letter is invalid.

The power to waive, or refuse waiver of, interest on warehoused goods vested in the Chief Commissioner, and a bare letter from the Addl. Commissioner was not a valid substitute for a speaking order. Because the communication did not show application of mind or record a hearing, it was not treated as a lawful order. The impugned communication was therefore set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Chief Commissioner to pass a reasoned, appealable order after hearing the appellants.

---

---

Issues: Whether the rejection of the request for waiver of interest on warehoused goods, conveyed by a letter of the Addl. Commissioner instead of a speaking order by the Chief Commissioner, was sustainable in law.

Analysis: The power to waive or decline waiver of interest on warehoused goods vested in the Chief Commissioner. The communication on record was merely a letter conveying that the request had been considered and rejected, without showing application of mind or a speaking order passed after hearing the appellants. Such a communication was not treated as a valid order in law.

Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Chief Commissioner for passing a speaking appealable order after hearing the appellants.

---