Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1986 (12) TMI 236

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e, before going into the merits of the case he would first draw Court s attention to the basis of his above submission and would request that the Court may first pass its order with reference to this submission. 3. It was his contention that in this case the hearing was granted by the learned Collector on 18-10-1982. However, the order-in-original communicated to them is, dated 13-10-1982, from which it would appear that the Collector had, admittedly, already made up his mind before hearing them in the matter. 4. They apprehend that it was a fact that this was a de novo proceeding resulting from an order of remand passed by the Central Board of Excise and Customs. The Central Board of Excise Customs, was required to remand the case .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... adjourned after some submissions had been made. In fact, the Collector had adjourned the hearing in order to get some verification done with reference to the submissions made by them. In this connection he would like to draw attention to the letter dated 19-10-1982 addressed to the Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta, mentioning the fact of the adjournment and the Collector s direction regarding verification and requesting that the next date of hearing might be fixed after 13-11-1982. Shri Banerjee submits that it is important to note that this letter is dated 19-10-1982 which means the day next to the date of hearing and shows that the hearing had not been concluded. 7. Therefore, in any eventuality, the purported order has been pass .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... laced below should be issued. and below this line the Collector has signed and the date indicated is 18-10-1982. From this it would appear that the hearing had been concluded on 18-10-1982 and the Collector had dictated the order on 18-10-1982 itself. 12. He has the departmental file of the matter and it contains the dictation and the draft order by the Collector and the Collector has signed after correcting the draft. This corrected and approved draft bears the signature of the Collector and indicates the date as 18-10-1982. 13. It was also his submission that there is no indication in the file that the case was adjourned on 18-10-1982 as claimed by the learned counsel of the appellant. There is also no indication that the Colle .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... learned counsel s letter, dated 19-10-1982 was received in the department on 20-10-1982 after the Collector had already passed the order on file. Therefore, obviously this letter could not have been taken into account by the Collector. 16. It is also his submission that although the Collector has referred to his previous order in para 5, this was apparently by way of reference only and although he has used the word confirm , apparently it only means that he came to the same conclusion as before. It is different from language used by him while imposing duty and penalty amount. It is not surprising that the Collector came to the same conclusion as before as the appellant had not submitted any new point during the de novo proceedings. In .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 8-10-1982 the matter was not concluded in all probability and we have no reason to disbelieve the content of the letter of the counsel dated 19-10-1982. In any eventuality, it is apparent that the order has been passed without taking into account all the facts. 22. That apart, it is also evident that the earlier order of the Collector which had been set aside by the Board ceased to exist in a legal sense as soon as it was so set aside by the said authority and, therefore, was not available for confirmation during the subsequent de novo proceedings. It was, therefore, technically wrong on the part of the Collector to pass an order confirming his earlier order which had ceased to exists. 23. We may also take this opportunity to observe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates