Act of Commissioner (A) shows that there is lack of knowledge of law as to how to deal with appeals filed
STRANGE are the ways in which the Commissioner(Appeals) disposes of stay applications.
In the present case, Commissioner(A) during the personal hearing "orally" instructed the appellant to make pre-deposit of some adjudged amounts involved in the appeal proceeding.
Initially the appellant thought that the "oral" directions would be followed by some written order but when that did not come, the appellant himself wrote to the Commissioner(A) for a "speaking order". Pat came the reply from the Commissioner (A) - he dismissed the appeals for non-compliance of the “oral directions” of pre-deposit allegedly made by him in terms of section 35F of the CEA, 1944.
The appellant is before the CESTAT and prays that the matter be remanded.
The Bench observed -
"4. The act of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) shows that there is a lack of knowledge of law as to how to deal with the appeals filed before him. As there is no speaking order for pre-deposit, the impugned order does not deserve any merit. Therefore, the matter needs re-examination at the end of the Commissioner (Appeals) for deciding the stay application. The Commissioner (Appeals) is directed to pass a speaking order on merits while dealing with stay application. Thereafter, the Commissioner (Appeals) shall decide the appeal on merits."
With these instructions, the CESTAT set aside the impugned order and the appeals were allowed by way of remand.
It was also very thoughtful on the part of the Bench to make the following mention -
"6. During pendency of these appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) for consideration of stay applications, no coercive steps to be taken against the appellant."
(See )