9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (3) TMI 93X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vitiated by the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay, as a consequence of Board's order-in-appeal, dated 6-3-1969, vacating the Collector's order-in-original, dated 23-11-1966, without prejudice to the Collector's right to re-adjudicate the case after complying with the principles of natural justice. When the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay, started the proceedings afresh, the petitioner conten ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rned counsel submitted that there was only a short legal point to be decided and that too based on the Madras High Court judgment in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. V.K. Palappanadar (AIR 1964 Madras 111) and the Gujarat High Court judgment in the case of Marsden Spinning & Weaving Co. v. Superintendent of Central Excise, Ahmedabad (6 G.L.R. p. 350). 3. Government is in agreement with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t look to the substance of the order and not the mere form of it and see whether the intention that there should be a remand or a de novo inquiry is sufficiently expressed on a fair and reasonable reading of the order. The question which we must ask ourselves is: Did the Central Board of Revenue vacate the order of the second respondent with a view to putting an end to the proceedings, or did it i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... obviously done in order that the second respondent should be able to enquire into charges against the petitioner on the merits. In view of the above, the Collector's order that it will be legally proper to re-adjudicate the case after due compliance with the principles of natural justice and confirmed by the Board in appeal is correct in law.
The revision application is, accordingly rejected. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
