TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the order rejecting dispensation of pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was liable to be set aside for being unreasoned and mechanical, and whether the matter should be remanded for fresh consideration.
Analysis: The impugned order was found to be mechanical and without application of mind. The petitioners' challenge was supported by the respondents' concession that the order could not be defended. The Court reiterated that orders on applications for dispensation of pre-deposit must reflect consideration of the relevant facts and circumstances and must be supported by reasons.
Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh hearing and a reasoned order.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
