9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Quashing of proceedings for recovery of duty and penalty. Analysis: The petitioner sought to quash the proceedings for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 6,810.32 as duty and penalty imposed by the Superintendent of Central Excise. The penalty was imposed on the petitioner's father, but the petitioner claimed that the order could not be enforced against him as he was not the licensee. However, it was revealed that the petitioner himself was the licensee and had filed the security. The original order highlighted the contravention of rules by the licensee, imposing a penalty and directing duty to be charged on the shortage. The petitioner's argument that his father was the licensee was refuted, and it was clarified that the order was passed against the petitioner, albeit a typing error mentioning the father's name. The Court emphasized that the petitioner failed to provide evidence supporting his claim that his father was the licensee, and the petitioner's attempt to capitalize on a technical error in the order after a significant delay was deemed unjustifiable. 2. Delay in seeking relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court noted that the petitioner's claim was highly belated, as the impugned order was passed in 1962, and the petitioner approached the Court in 1967. Despite the typing error in the order mentioning the father's name instead of the petitioner's, the Court emphasized that the proceedings were directed against the petitioner, who had participated in the appeal process without raising the issue. The Court highlighted that relief under Article 226 is not an absolute right and that the petitioner's attempt to seek relief based on a technical defect in the order after such a long delay was not permissible. The Court dismissed the petition, emphasizing that the petitioner's incorrect allegations and delayed approach did not warrant relief under Article 226. In conclusion, the Court dismissed the petition, upholding the penalty and duty imposed on the petitioner as the licensee, rejecting the petitioner's claim that the order was erroneously directed against his father. The Court emphasized the petitioner's failure to provide evidence supporting his assertion and highlighted the unjustifiably delayed attempt to seek relief under Article 226 based on a technical error in the order.
|
