9911796707
TMI Blog1968 (4) TMI 22X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y and penalty be quashed. 2.By an order dated 17-5-1962, the Superintendent of Central Excise, Mainpuri, imposed a penalty of Rs. 100/- on Shri Latoori Mal, Proprietors M/s. Latoori Mal Ram Swaroop of Barhan, for contravention of rule 151 (c) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. He also directed that duty may also be charged on the shortage not satisfactorily explained at the appropriate rate unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e petitioner. The petitioner does not say that he did not inherit the assets of his father in relation to the excise business. Further, his allegation that his father was the licensee has been controverted in the counter-affidavit, where it has been stated that the petitioner had made an application for licence in 1960. The petitioner himself was the licensee. He had filed the security. When the b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t satisfactorily explained at the appropriate rate under rule 160 of the C. Ex. Rules, 1944." 5.When this order was communicated, a typing error was committed inasmuch as instead of the petitioner's name being mentioned, the name of Latoori Mal as the proprietor of the firm was typed in the order. All along the proceedings were directed against the petitioner. He took the proceedings by way of ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt with incorrect allegations and wants to take advantage of a typing error in an order, which was passed in 1962. The petitioner had filed an appeal. It has not been stated whether this point was taken by him there. In that event, the mistake would have been corrected then and there. After such a long lapse of time he cannot be given relief on the basis of such a technical defect in the order. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
