9911796707
TMI Blog1974 (4) TMI 97X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The contention put forward on behalf of the petitioner appellant in support of the appeal by its learned counsel was that the learned Single Judge fell in error in applying the definition of 'motor spirit' of the product manufactured by the petitioner on erroneous or misappreciation of the facts. His further contention was that indecision of the appeal the Appellate Authority did not apply is mind in arriving at a finding, as was its duty, before rejecting the appeal and the appellate order, a coy of which is annexed as Annexure 'G' to the poetition, did not show application of mind by the appellate authority. 2. We think that this appeal has some force. Learned Single Judge seems to have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le of the Central Excises and Salt Act. It was not considered necessary by us to examine the force behind this argument as we propose to give a limited relief for the present to the petitioner after setting aside the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge. 3. Having perused the appellate order, a copy of which is Annexure 'G' to the petition, we find ourselves in agreement with the submission of the learned Counsel of the petitioner appellant, inspite of the efforts of Shri B. N. Sapru appearing for the Union of lndia to the contrary, that the appellate order on the fact of it does not show that the case of the appellant before the appellate authority was considered on merits and the mind was applied by the appellate authority ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... function and it ought to have applied its mind to all the relevant and material controversies raised before it before deciding the appeal. The ground for dismissing the appeal, as observed, above, amounts to merely a general opinion and not to an examination and consideration on merit the case of the petitioner appellant. We think that the learned Single Judge was in error in not quashing the appellate order, the petitioner having made out a case for its quashing. 4. The result is that this appeal succeeds. The judgment and order of the learned Single Judge is set aside the impugned appellate order dated 22nd December, 1966, Annexure 'G' to the petition, is quashed. A further direction is issued that the Appellate Authority will re-c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
