Reasoned order requirement in Section 35F stay or waiver matters; non-speaking rejection cannot stand and matters were remanded.

A Commissioner (Appeals) dealing with a stay or waiver request under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act must act as a quasi-judicial authority and apply judicial mind to the facts and materials before him. An order rejecting such relief must record reasons and show consideration of the relevant contentions and circumstances; a non-speaking rejection without reasoned justification does not satisfy that standard. The impugned rejection orders were set aside and the matters were remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh disposal in accordance with law by passing a reasoned order.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Commissioner (Appeals), while dealing with a request for stay or waiver under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, could reject the application without recording reasons, and whether such orders were liable to be set aside and remanded.

Analysis: The Commissioner (Appeals) acts as a quasi-judicial authority and is required to apply judicial mind to the facts and materials placed before him. An order under Section 35F must disclose reasons showing consideration of the relevant contentions and circumstances. A non-speaking rejection of the stay or waiver request, without any reasoned justification, does not satisfy the standard of judicial determination and cannot be sustained as a proper adjudicatory order.

Conclusion: The impugned orders rejecting stay or waiver were set aside and the matters were remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh disposal in accordance with law by passing a reasoned order.

---