TMI Blog1982 (2) TMI 78X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decisions respectively given by respondents 3, 2 and 1 holding that certain fabric manufactured by the petitioners is furnishing fabric as distinguished from the petitioners' contention that the said fabric being Sort No. 7429 manufactured by them was dress material and not furnishing fabric. If it is basically dress material then it would be classified under Item 19I(2) and not under Item 19I(1) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppear that the two Secretaries to the Government of India who had heard the revision originally differed and thereafter the third Secretary who had not heard the party agreed with the Secretary who had held against the petitioners. It would be clear that before the final decision was taken by the third Secretary some sort of hearing was required to be given to the petitioners to explain their case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the usual useless non-judicial order passed by the appellate authority. It records only that the Appellate Collector found that the cloth looks like furnishing cloth and therefore decided that it was furnishing cloth rejecting all the several contentions of the appellants. Surely, this is not the proper method or the manner in which appellate powers are to be exercised. Such orders proclaim the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de absolute in terms of prayer (a) but restricted to the appellate order of February, 1975 (exhibit 'E' to the petition) and the revisional order (exhibit 'G' to the petition). This will mean that proceedings will start from the appellate stage anew and the appellate decision is required to be taken after hearing the petitioners. Parties are directed to bear their own costs. 5. At the appellate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
