TMI Blog2012 (5) TMI 595X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly to the writ petition. 3. It appears from the facts of the case and argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that on 19 th December, 2011, the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise and Service Tax, Ranchi passed the order rejecting the petitioner's application under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 without affording any opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs that when said order was set aside and when the said authority was directed to give opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner, the said appellate authority became wise and rejected the application of the writ petitioner for dispensing with from pre-deposit of the amount for maintaining the appeal. 4. Without commenting much, we may observe here that this change in view of the appellate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6 (S.C.) and issue relating to pre-hearing for deciding such application is subjudiced before this Court in another writ petition. Therefore, at this stage, there is no need to any more comment. 5. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that said judgment was not cited by him nor it was cited by any representative of the Revenue as representative of Revenue was not heard, which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
