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

1974 (10) TMI 95

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... es and Salt Act in Form No. L4. Under notification No. 35/64, dated 1st March, 1964, issued by the Government of India under the Central Excise, Act, the petitioner was entitled to clearance of 125 metric tonnes of Mill Board duty free as the petitioner's factory was established before the notification. The petitioner applied for the renewal of the licence in respect of the new premises and also claimed the concession under the aforesaid notification, dated 1st March, 1964. The Supdt., Central Excise, Kanpur refused the request of the petitioner to renew the licence and asked the petitioner the apply for a fresh licence making it clear that the petitioner will not be entitled to the concession in terms of the notification of Is. March, 1964 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... to show cause why its licence should not be cancelled. The petitioner's objection was not accepted and by an order dated 8th May, 1968, the Collector, Central Excise, cancelled the petitioner's licence. The petitioner's appeal to the Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi also failed. Its revision under Sec. 36 of the Act also did not succeed before the Government of India. The petitioners has now approached this court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. The first question that arrises is as to whether the Collector Central Excise, was competent to revise the order passed by his predecessor allowing the petitioner's appeal, This contention was raised before the Collector, Central Excise and he has disposed of this contention .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sale proceeds in respect of your original factory with all its equipments and machineries, from M/s. Goel Card Board Industries vice your voucher No. 318, dated 1-7-1964. (ii) Even in respect of the residental balance of paper board Iying in the said factory on the date of the above transaction (sale) you had received an amount of ₹ 500/ from the purchasing party namely M/s. Goel Card Board Industries. (iii) My physical inspection of your original factory at Govindnagar clearly showed that M/s. Goel Card Board Industries have since then, been the sole owners of the factory, the ownership having come to them consequent on your transfer thereof through sale. This position is further confirmed by the fact that the monthly rent of the p .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... me to the knowledge of the Department when M/s. Goel Card Board Industries came in appeal to claim the concession under Notification No. 35/61, the petitioners were proceeded against and after observing the due process of law action was taken to withdraw the concession enjoyed by the petitioner." 6. It appears that M/s. Goel Card Board Industries had also applied for a licence and claimed the benefit of the notification of 1st March, 1964. It is not clear whether that concession was granted to them or not. But it appears that such a concession must have been granted to M/s. Goel Card Board Industries and the petitioner's licence was cancelled because two persons could not claim benefit of the notification in respect of the same factor .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... concession under the notification. 7. This view finds full support from a decision of the Madras High Court in M/s. Agrawal Brothers Madras v. Union of India and others [1972 (11) MLJ 476]. Thus this ground could also not be the basis for the review, firstly, because it was not admissible being not relevant to the petitioner's case and secondly because it was legally wrong. 8. The Collector was not competent to review the order of his predecessor admits of no doubt whatsoever. Orders with regard to issurance and cancellation of licences under the Central Excises and Salt Act and the Rules made thereunder are of a quasi judicial nature. Such orders are appealable and a revision lies to the States/Government against the appellate .....

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