1990 (7) TMI 110

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....half of the respondents. Heard counsel. 1. The grievance of the petitioners is that the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay has disposed of the applications for stay of the order passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise during pendency of the appeal without giving them an opportunity of being heard. The petitioners also complain that consequently because of the failure to c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Assistant Collector pending hearing and final disposal of the appeal. Both the stay applications were disposed of by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) without giving any hearing to the petitioner and holding that he was not satisfied that pre-deposit required under Section 35F of the Excise Act would cause undue hardship to the petitioner as to warrant a waiver of the same. As a consequen....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ent authority should have made departure from the same. It is not proper for the authority to merely read the stay application and pass order adverse against the petitioners. The authority should realise that an application for stay is a proceeding independent of the appeal filed against the order of the Assistant Collector. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) shall hear the parties when an ....