M.C.Agarwal, J. - (1.) Though the impugned order is common, it deals with four applications under the proviso to Section 35-F of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944. Therefore, four sets of Court-fee are payable. Petitioner's Counsel agrees to make up the deficiency good.
(2.) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges an order dated 27th January, 1999 as modified by an order dated 1st February, 1999 passed in Appeal Nos. 423, 424, 425 and 426-C.E./Appl/ MRT/98 whereby in the aforesaid first appeals the Commissioner (Appeals) Customs and Central Excise, Ghaziabad was rejected the petitioner's application for waiver of the conditions of pre-deposit in exercise of powers under the proviso to Section 35-F of the Central Excise and Salt Act 1944.
(3.) I have heard Shri A.P. Mathur, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Surya Prakash, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.;