K. SHIVASHANKAR BHAT ( 1 ) RULE D. B. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order of the CEGAT dated 8. 7. 1993 holding that the petitioners have not made out a prima facie case for waiver of duty and that financial hardship has not been substantiated by the 1st petitioner. Petitioners were given 10 weeks tune to deposit the entire duty failing which appeal was to be dismissed. However, levy of penalty was stayed. ( 2 ) IT was contended that a perusal of the orders of the Appellate Tribunal shows that it has summarised the respective cases and then proceeded to state that no prima facie case was made out by the petitioners. Actually, specific reasons to reject the contentions of the petitioners are not forthcoming. May be, the Appellate Tribunal must have thought that at this interim stage, detailed reasons need not be given. But, atleast there should be an indication as to why the case pleaded by the petitioner is not worth acceptance. ( 3 ) IT is unnecessary to go into this aspect because the learned counsel for the petitioners brought to our notice that In respect of the same period, subsequently, there has been an order under the provisions of the Income Tax Act. This order is dated 16. 11. 1993 and this order has a bearing on the question involved. There is considerable force in this submission. ( 4 ) CONSEQUENTLY, we set aside the order of the Appellate Tribunal and remit back the matter to the said Tribunal for a fresh consideration of the question pertaining to the dispensation of pre-deposit. ( 5 ) PARTIES are directed to be present before the Appellate Tribunal on 23. 5. 1994 to take note of further proceedings. ( 6 ) BOTH the writ petitions are allowed accordingly.