9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (2) TMI 78X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e are Shree Sitaram Mills Ltd. and in the petition they have impugned the decisions respectively given by respondents 3, 2 and 1 holding that certain fabric manufactured by the petitioners is furnishing fabric as distinguished from the petitioners' contention that the said fabric being Sort No. 7429 manufactured by them was dress material and not furnishing fabric. If it is basically dress materia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of India. I find a slight confusion in the revisional orders. It would appear that the two Secretaries to the Government of India who had heard the revision originally differed and thereafter the third Secretary who had not heard the party agreed with the Secretary who had held against the petitioners. It would be clear that before the final decision was taken by the third Secretary some sort of h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erefore, rejected." These are quasi-judicial proceedings and this is the usual useless non-judicial order passed by the appellate authority. It records only that the Appellate Collector found that the cloth looks like furnishing cloth and therefore decided that it was furnishing cloth rejecting all the several contentions of the appellants. Surely, this is not the proper method or the manner in w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dress material and not furnishing fabric. In the result, Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer (a) but restricted to the appellate order of February, 1975 (exhibit 'E' to the petition) and the revisional order (exhibit 'G' to the petition). This will mean that proceedings will start from the appellate stage anew and the appellate decision is required to be taken after hearing the petitioners. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
