1960 (10) TMI 88 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of Assistant Collector to proceed with a fresh inquiry under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act.
2. Power of appellate authority to remand a matter for a fresh inquiry.
3. Concerns regarding obtaining justice if the matter is sent back to the same Assistant Collector.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was against the judgment refusing to issue a writ of prohibition against the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Nellore, to stop further proceedings with an inquiry and adjudication. The appellant, a firm dealing in leaf tobacco, was issued a notice for contravening Central Excise Rules, resulting in seizure of tobacco and imposition of penalties. The Collector allowed the appeal on the grounds of denial of a personal hearing, setting aside the Assistant Collector's order. Subsequently, the Assistant Collector issued another notice, leading to the petition for a writ of prohibition.

2. The main argument was whether the Assistant Collector had jurisdiction to proceed with a fresh inquiry under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act. The appellant contended that the appellate authority could only confirm, alter, or annul the decision appealed against, not direct a fresh inquiry. However, the High Court held that the power of remand is inherent in appellate jurisdiction to ensure a satisfactory disposal of appeals. Referring to a similar case under the Motor Vehicles Act, the court concluded that the absence of a specific provision for remand does not prevent the appellate authority from sending the matter back for a fresh inquiry.

3. The appellant raised concerns about obtaining justice if the matter was sent back to the same Assistant Collector. The court rejected this argument, stating that bias was not suggested, and the possibility of the officer being transferred or the option to request a different officer if bias was suspected. Ultimately, the court affirmed the order under appeal, dismissing the appeal with costs and advocating for a fee of &8377; 100.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Assistant Collector's power to initiate proceedings afresh and dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the inherent power of the appellate authority to remand cases for a satisfactory disposal of appeals. The concerns regarding obtaining justice from the same officer were addressed by suggesting options for recourse if bias was suspected.