G.P. Agarwal, Member (J)

1. The following interesting question arose for our determination when the case was taken up for hearing in the circumstances mentioned hereinafter -

"Whether the oral Order pronounced by the Bench on 19-4-1988 in the open Court allowing the appeal with the remark that 'Order to follow1 amounts to an 'Order' passed by the Appellate Tribunal within the meaning of Sub-section (1) of Section 35-C of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944."

2. Circumstances leading to the present controversy are that being dissatisfied with the order of recovery of Rs. 1,13,802.62 from the appellants M/s. Basti Sugar Mills Co. Ltd., Walterganj, Basti, they filed their present appeal before the Tribunal under Section 35-B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter for short 'Act'). The same was heard on merits by the Special Bench of the Tribunal consisting of Shri S.D. Jha, Vice-President (Judicial) and S/Shri I.J. Rao and D.C. Mandal, both Technical Members on 19-4-1988. After hearing the appeal the Bench orally pronounced the Order allowing the appeal with the remark that "Order to follow". The said Order of the Bench dated 19-4-1988 reads as under -

3. It appear