Natural justice governs dismissal of a stay application, requiring fair hearing and restoration for fresh consideration.

A stay application under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act could not be dismissed for non-appearance where the hearing was fixed by telegram at a different place and attendance was impracticable. The authority was required to act fairly, comply with earlier directions to decide the application within time, and observe natural justice in quasi-judicial disposal. The impugned dismissal was therefore unsustainable. The order was quashed and the stay application was restored for fresh hearing and decision in accordance with law and natural justice.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order dismissing the stay application under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for non-appearance, without affording a fair opportunity of hearing, was sustainable and whether the application ought to be restored for fresh consideration.

Analysis: The petitioner had filed an appeal under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and simultaneously sought stay under Section 35F. The application remained pending despite earlier judicial directions to decide it within a specified time. The subsequent dismissal was founded on absence at a hearing fixed by telegram at a different place and on a date when attendance was impracticable. Such disposal was held inconsistent with the obligation of the authority to act in a fair and quasi-judicial manner and to comply with the principles of natural justice.

Conclusion: The impugned order was quashed and set aside, and the stay application was restored to file for hearing and decision in accordance with law and natural justice.

---