Hearing requirement and pre-deposit hardship ruled central, with remand ordered for fresh decision on merits.

The commentary states that, in proceedings under Section 35A, the Commissioner (Appeals) must grant a hearing before deciding the appeal and should not insist on immediate pre-deposit of the entire demand and penalties without adequately considering hardship. It also notes that the activity of transferring chemicals from bigger to smaller containers had not been examined in light of the Board's circular. The impugned order was set aside, pre-deposit was waived, recovery was stayed, and the appeals were remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh decision on merits after hearing the appellant.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order dismissing the appeal for non-deposit, without granting a hearing, was sustainable and whether the matter required remand for de novo consideration.

Analysis: The Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) was required to grant a hearing in proceedings under Section 35A and that repeated reliance on the earlier view dispensing with hearing was not justified. It also held that directing immediate pre-deposit of the entire demand and penalties, without adequate consideration of hardship, was unreasonable. The Tribunal further noted that the nature of the activity of transferring chemicals from bigger to smaller containers had not been examined in light of the Board's circular.

Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside, pre-deposit was waived, recovery was stayed, and the appeals were remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh decision on merits after granting hearing without insisting on pre-deposit.

---