Inox Air Products Ltd. vs Commr. of C. Ex. (Appeals)

V. Ramasubramanian, J.

The, only ground on which the petitioner has come up with the above writ petition, challenging the conditional order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) for waiver of pre-deposit condition and for grant of stay is that the 1st respondent has not gone into the question of prima facie case and relative hardship. In view of such a limited submission, I took up the writ petition itself for disposal.

Heard Mr. Joseph Prabakar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. S. Thirumavalavan, learned Central Government Standing Counsel takes notice for the respondents.

The operative portion of the impugned order discloses that the 1st respondent did not consider whether the petitioner has a prima facie case or not and whether the imposition of any condition would cause undue hardship to the petitioner or not. There are several decisions of this Court and various Courts to the effect that the Commissioner (Appeals) should indicate application of mind in his orders to the issues of prima facie case and undue hardship before imposing any condition or before waiving pre-deposit condition. Since it is not reflected in the impugned order, the same is liable to go. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The 1st respondent is directed to consider the questions of prima facie case and undue hardship and pass a fresh order on the application for waiver and stay, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.