9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty on the petitioner for alleged offense and violation of Rule 52A. 2. Rejection of appeal by Central Board of Excise and Customs on the ground of being belated. 3. Rejection of further revision by the third respondent. 4. Challenge to all three orders of the authorities below in a writ petition. 5. Interpretation of Section 36(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. 6. Failure of the third respondent to exercise suo motu revision powers. Analysis: The petitioner, a match manufacturer, was penalized for an alleged offense and Rule 52A violation by the Collector of Central Excise. The penalty was imposed based on the seriousness of the offense. The petitioner's appeal to the Central Board of Excise and Customs was rejected as belated, with no provision for condoning the delay. A further revision was also rejected on similar grounds. The petitioner challenged all three orders through a writ petition, seeking to quash them. During the hearing, the petitioner's counsel argued for a review of the penalty imposition and the legality of the orders. It was contended that even if the appeal was belated, the government should have used its suo motu revision power under Section 36(2) of the Act to consider the case on its merits. The provision allows the Central Government to review decisions for correctness, legality, or propriety. The court emphasized that the power of suo motu revision should be exercised even when brought to the notice by the aggrieved party, as seen in similar legislations. The court noted that the revision, if received on time, would have been within the deadline. Despite a postal delay, the revision reached the appellate authority slightly late. The court criticized the third respondent for not utilizing its suo motu revision powers to review the case on its merits, instead of summarily rejecting it based on timeliness. The court found the third respondent's failure to exercise discretion as a total non-application of mind to the obligation of ensuring justice. Consequently, the court quashed the impugned order and directed the third respondent to reconsider the revision under Section 36(2) of the Act, focusing on the merits of the case. A timeline of three months was set for the third respondent to review the case, ensuring a fair opportunity for the petitioner. The writ petition was allowed in favor of the petitioner without any costs.
|
