9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (7) TMI 603X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion shows one signature would not mean that the decision was not taken by the Committee. In the absence of any other material, it is not possible to hold that the decision was not taken by the Committee. Consequently, that contention is rejected. use of raw material for the purpose of import. Both the authorities below, after considering evidence arrived at concurrent finding of fact that pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and not by all the members of the Committee and on this count itself the order is liable to be set aside. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and asked him to point out to us in the petition where the averment has been made that the decision is not by the Committee. Learned counsel was unable to show any averment in the petition. Learned counsel then submits that in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the imported raw material had been mis-utilised and hence dismissed the appeal." It is thus clear that the decision was taken by the Committee. The mere fact that the order annexed by the petitioners to the petition shows one signature would not mean that the decision was not taken by the Committee. In the absence of any other material, it is not possible to hold that the decision was not t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hority. After considering the evidence, both the Authorities have arrived at a concurrent finding of fact that the petitioners did not use the raw material for the purpose it was imported. The finding recorded by both the Authorities below is purely finding of fact. The order does not disclose any infirmity on the face of record. 6. In the light of the above, no interference is called for. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
