9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 870X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8. The respondent filed ROM application on 13.03.2009 on the ground that the Order In Original dated 30.04.2008 was passed ex-parte without hearing it. 2. Ld. DR stated that Revenue is not contesting the case on merits but only on the point that it was not a case of any error apparent on record and therefore impugned order is not sustainable. Revenue has contended that the order dated 30.04.2008 cannot be said to have been issued ex-parte as it was issued after granting several opportunities of hearing to the respondent. Hearings were fixed on four different dates, some of which were attended by two persons, Shri Amit Pandey and Shri B.L. Dubey. Therefore, there was no error apparent from the records. 3. Ld. Advocate for the respondent pl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had sought one month's time vide letter dated 29.03.2008. The Commissioner in the impugned order dated 09.06.2009 has clearly recorded that the letter dated 29.03.2008 of the respondent was received in the office of the Adjudicating authority but it is seen that order dated 30.04.2008 was passed without granting any opportunity for personal hearing in the wake of the respondent's letter dated 29.03.2008. We find that Revenue has not been able to produce any evidence before us to show that vide letter dated 29.03.2008 the respondent had given up its right to be heard in person. It is thus evident that the order dated 30.04.2008 was passed without granting personal hearing when there was a request made for the same and without rejecti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uthority. But on the question whether the determination in the instant case was within or outside the jurisdiction, different views were expressed. According to the majority, the error committed by the Commission was not merely an error of law but an error of jurisdiction which rendered their decision a nullity and, therefore, the decision was not a "decision"' in the eyes of law. According to Lord Reid, "determination" means a real determination and does not include an apparent or purported determination which in the eyes of the law has no existence because it is a nullity. If you seek to show that a determination is a nullity you are not questioning the purported determination-you are maintaining that it does not exist as a determ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
