9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (11) TMI 61X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the orders dated 30th October, 1980 (Exhibit H) and 19th December, 1980 (Exhibit I) passed by the Respondent No. 2. The petitioner has also challenged the legality of the order dated 2nd February, 1983 (Exhibit M) made by the Respondent No. 1 rejecting petitioner's appeal on the ground of limitation. 2. In our opinion, both these pray ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assistant Collector, after hearing the petitioner, by his order dated 6-6-1979 directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 1,19,199.30 towards excise duty and also imposed fine of Rs. 2000/-. The 2nd Respondent-Collector however reviewed the order of the Assistant Collector and by his order dated 29-4-1980 set aside the order of recovery of excise duty but imposed the penalty of Rs. 60,000/-. He however ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of the imposition of penalty of Rs. 60,000/-. The revision application is disposed of accordingly." 4. The Superintendent of Central Excise on October 30, 1980 and December 19, 1980 passed the detention orders (Exhibits H and I). Both these orders are passed pursuant to the order passed by Collector of Central Excise in the Revision Application No. 3 of 1980. The petitioner seeks to challenge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioner, however, drew our attention to the order passed by the Assistant Collector for the subsequent period i.e. September, 1978 to show that the petitioner was in fact granted benefit of exemption notification issued on 15-7-1977. It is undoubtedly true that under the said order the Assistant Collector granted the benefit of exemption notification to the petitioner but that does not nec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... " We are afraid such a request of the learned advocate cannot be accepted since it was necessary for the petitioner to challenge both these orders specifically in view of the fact that the same had a binding effect and in fact the petitioner was knowing about the same. 7. Thus, in our opinion, the petitioner does not make out any case to grant any relief as regards the two detention orders at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
