TMI Blog1967 (9) TMI 37X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re few and may be briefly stated as follows : The petitioners are engaged in manufacture of art silk fabrics and for the purpose of manufacture they have a factory in Surat. On 6th August, 1960 the officers of the Central Excise Department visited the factory for the purpose of inspection and according to them it was found that the petitioners had not maintained proper accounts in Form R.G. 18 as required by Rule 95K (3) (a). The petitioners also at the time of the inspection, according to the officers of the Excise Department, voluntarily obstructed or offered resistance to or impeded the officers in the discharge of their duty and were therefore, guilty of contravention of Rule 198(1). The Superintendent of Excise, Surat, thereupon issu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 10th October, 1961 vacating the order of the second respondent impugned in the appeal. Since the determination of the controvercy between the parties in this petition turns almost entirely on the true construction of this order passed by the Central Board of Revenue, it would be desirable to set it out in extensio. That order ran as follows : "Order The Central Board of Revenue have carefully considered all the points raised by the appellants in the appeal and at the time of personal hearing granted to them. The appellants contend that the principle of natural justice were not followed by the Collector while adjudicating the case in so far as that certain documents relied upon by him for adjudication purposes were not supplied to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ause notice was that once the proceedings initiated by the previous show cause notice for holding the petitioners liable for contravention of Rules 96K (3) (a) and 198 (1) had terminated in favour of the petitioners as a result of the order of the Central Board of Revenue, it was not open to the first respondent to issue a fresh show cause notice seeking to hold the petitioner liable for the same offences on the same facts. The argument of the petitioners was that the order of the Central Board of Revenue did not contain a direction remanding the matter to the second respondent, or authorizing the second respondent to make a de novo inquiry and, therefore no fresh inquiry into the same offences on the same facts could be held by the first o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... denovo inquiry is sufficiently expressed on a fair and reasonable reading of the order. The question which we must ask ourselves is : did the Central Board of Revenue vacate the order of the second respondent with a view to putting an end to the proceeding or did it intend that the proceeding should remain alive and be disposed of on merits either on remand or by a de novo inquiry? If we approach the construction of the order of the Central Board of Revenue from this point of view, there is no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that it was clearly intended by the order that the proceedings should not stand finally terminated but that the merits of the charges against the petitioners should be inquired into and decided. 4.The words "w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isposing of the appeal only on a preliminary contention and it was not at all necessary for the Central Board of Revenue to say that it was not going into the merits of the case. But even if the Central Board of Revenue thought it necessary to point out specifically that was deciding the appeal only on a preliminary contention and was not going into the merits of the case, it could have used appropriate language to express what it wanted to say. It could have used some such words as "without going into the merits of the case" or "it is not necessary to go into the merits of the case" which would have been more appropriate. But instead, it used the words "without prejudice to the merits of the case". We must give proper meaning to the words ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . If the order was intended to finally terminate the proceedings and nothing further remaining to be done, there was no point in making an express provision saying the merits of the case. We are of the view that on a fair and reasonable construction of the order, the intention of the Central Board of Revenue was clear that the proceedings should remain alive against the petitioners and that the merits of the case should be inquired into and determined. The order passed by the Central Board of Revenue cannot, therefore, be read as precluding an inquiry into the merits of the charges against the petitioners. 5.It was also urged on behalf of the respondents that, in any view of the matter, the order of the Central Board of Revenue did not de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
