2007 (8) TMI 749

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 28th March, 2002 passed by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India being Order No. 85-87/2002. 3. The only grievance that the petitioner has in respect of this order is that it was passed without even so much as giving the petitioner a notice to sustain the order under revision, that is, the order of the Commissioner of Customs ( .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed by learned counsel for the respondent, no revisionary jurisdiction can be exercised without calling for necessary records of the case and, therefore, by necessary implication the revisionary authority is bound to call for the records. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that the impugned order cannot be sustained. 7. We would expect the revisionary authority, in future, to issue .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... there is a specific averment that no notice was issued to the petitioner before the revisionary authority took its decision. Under the circumstances, the decision relied upon by learned counsel for the respondent is clearly distinguishable. 9. With these observations, we set aside the impugned order dated 28th March, 2002 and direct the parties to appear before the revisionary authority on 2 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X