TMI Blog1980 (12) TMI 47X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Central Excise, Madras issued proceedings C-V/33, D/17-3-1975. By the said proceedings, the Assistant Collector fixed the value of the goods manufactured by the petitioner under Section 4 of the Act. The value so fixed was to take effect from 1-10-1974. By the said proceedings, the provisional approval accorded to the petitioner's price-list on 25-9-1975 was withdrawn. The said proceedings further stated that the petitioner sold 90% of the goods to Messrs Macneil and Magor Ltd., that the petitioner's goods were therefore nor ordinarily sold to independent buyers in the wholesale trade at the price declared in its price-list, that M/s. Macneil and Magor Ltd. were related persons for the purpose of valuation of the goods and that consequently the value of the goods for the purpose of duty should be deemed to be the normal price at which M/s. Macneil and Magor Ltd. sold the products to dealers. 2. On 12-1-1976, the petitioner enclosed a price-list as called for by the proceedings dated 18-12-1975 under protest and without prejudice to the rights to question the said proceedings. The said letter also stated that the Assistant Collector was not correct in holding that Messrs Macne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ect null and void. Therefore, the respondents are not entitled to call upon the petitioner to pay differential duty of Rs. 20,057.82 pursuant to the order dated 18-12-1975 which was void ab initio. 4. Mr. U.N.R. Rao, the learned Standing Counsel for the Central Government appearing for the respondents did not dispute the fact that prior notice was not given to the petitioner before the price was finally fixed by the proceedings dated 18-12-1975 and that the said proceedings are vitiated by a failure to conform to the principles of natural justice. Mr. Rao, however, contended that the petitioner had a right of appeal against the order, dated 18-12-1975. The order itself expressly stated that the appeal would lie against the said order to the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Madras. However, the petitioner did not prefer an appeal within the period of limitation. The belated appeal presented by the petitioner was dismissed as barred by limitation. The further revision filed by the petitioner was also dismissed. In the circumstances, it would not be open to the petitioner to contend that the order dated 18-12-1975 is liable to be set aside for the reasons that no opportunity w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a want of jurisdiction as opposed to a failure to follow a procedural requirement, the result is a nullity. This was indeed decided by the Court of Exchequer in Wood v. Woad, L.R. 9 Exc. 190, whereas, here, there was a failure to give a hearing. In Spackman v. Plumsteed, L.R. 10 A.C. 229, referring to another statement, Lord Selborne said "There would be no decision within the meaning of the statute if there were anything of that sort done contrary to the essence of justice". I would apply this language whether the Municipal Corporation Act, 1882 or the Police Regulations are to be considered. In either case the Watch Committee in failing to give a hearing to the appellant acted without jurisdiction." 7. In Collector of Customs v. A.H.A. Rahiman, A.I.R. 1957 Mad. 496 it is held as follows :- "Where the Collector of Customs passes an order of confiscation or penalty without notice and without enquiry, the order contravenes every principle of natural justice and must be deemed to be a nullity." 8. In W.A. No. 67 of 1976 - Superintending Engineer, Vellore Electricity System v. Chinnakannu - the first respondent was employed as a lorry driver under the appellant, the Superintend ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ground that the principles of natural justice required the issuance of notice to the Government servant concerned, before passing the impugned order. It is admitted that any order passed in violation of the principles of natural justice is a nullity. On the application of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case referred to above, it must be held in the present case that the memorandum dated 22-1-1972, passed without notice to the first respondent, is a nullity and consequently, there was no order which the first respondent was bound to get rid of before he could approach the Labour Court directly under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947." 9. It is equally well settled that the effect of a breach of the principles of the natural justice which vitiated the original decision cannot be cured by the principles of natural justice being complied with at the appellate stage. Denning LJ. put the matter very clearly in Barnard v. National Dock Labour Board, 1953-2-QBD 18, thus "So far as the decision of the appeal tribunal is concerned, it seems to me that, once the port manager's order is found to be a nullity, it follows that the order of the appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
