9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (7) TMI 883X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... This has not been done. In fact, the technical reports had not at all been adverted to. There appears to be a non-application of mind in this regard. Consequently, the present petition is allowed to the extent that the order dated May 3, 2005, annexure P10, passed by the State Appellate Forum is set aside. The appeal filed by the petitioner-company before the State Appellate Forum is restored to its original number and shall be decided afresh by the State Appellate Forum, in accordance with law, by passing a detailed and speaking order, within a period of six months from the date parties put in their appearance. - Writ Petition Nos. 825, 826 of 2005 - - - Dated:- 8-7-2008 - VINEY MITTAL , J. JUDGMENT:- VINEY MITTAL J. This ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m that the petitioner-company was entitled to the exemption claimed by it. While filing the written submissions before the State Appellate Forum, the petitioner-company also appended opinion/ reports of various technical experts who opined that the product of the petitioner-company did not involve any refining process, but was only a blending of certain chemicals. The State Appellate Forum, vide order dated February 28, 2004 rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner-company and the order passed by the appellate authority was upheld. The order of rejection passed by the Appellate Forum is appended as annexure P7 with the present petition. The petitioner approached this court earlier through a writ petition being W.P. No. 410 of 2004. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... houdhary has also argued that the petitioner-company while filing its written submissions, had submitted the reports of various technical experts, to show that there was no process of refinery involved in the blending of chemicals by the petitioner-company and therefore the product of the petitionercompany could not be treated to have been included in the notification in question, wherein the exclusion from exemption had been mentioned. Shri Choudhary has raised a grievance that both the aforesaid questions, though specifically raised before the Appellate Forum had not been taken into consideration by the Appellate Forum. On the other hand, Shri Umesh Gajankush, learned Government counsel for the Department, has supported the order , ann ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies of the petitioner-company are entitled to exemption or not is a matter which is to be left to the technical experts and it is not for this court to opine in the matter, but the fact cannot be lost sight of that the petitioner-company had relied upon certain technical reports to support its claim. In these circumstances, the Appellate Forum could have examined the aforesaid technical reports, and if so required, the departmental authority could have submitted any counter-technical report in the matter. This has not been done. In fact, the technical reports had not at all been adverted to. There appears to be a non-application of mind in this regard. Consequently, the present petition is allowed to the extent that the order dated May 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
