9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (3) TMI 91X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the disposal the writ petition deserves, it is unnecessary for me to deal with the merits of the matter at length. The petitioner is a manufacturer of matches at Gudiyatham. Under the proceedings of the Collector of Central Excise, Madras, dated 10-10-1973, the petitioner was imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- for the alleged offence and violation of Rule 52A on the finding that the offence committed was pre-planned, deliberate and is of a very serious nature warranting a deterrent penalty. An appeal filed before the Central Board of Excise and Customs came to be rejected on the ground that it was belated and there was no powers to condone the delay in an appellate authority. The further revision filed also came to be rejected on the ground ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this Act for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of such a decision or order and may pass such order thereon as it thinks fit : Provided that no decision or order shall be varied so as to prejudicially affect any person unless such person is given a reasonable opportunity of making a representation and, if he so desires, of being heard in his defence : Provided further no proceedings shall be commenced under this sub-section in respect of any decision or order (whether such decision or order has been passed before or after the coming into force of this sub-section) after the expiration of a period of one year from the date of such decision or order." It is by now well settled as a proposition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... my view, the third respondent which has been conferred with powers of suo motu revision, which as noticed earlier, may and ought to be exercised even at the instance of the aggrieved person in a deserving case, has committed an error in not doing so. In my view, it is a case of total non-application of mind to the obligation cast upon the third respondent to do real and substantial justice. For all the reasons stated above, the impugned order is hereby quashed. The third respondent is directed to dispose of the revision filed by the petitioner as one to be dealt with under Section 36(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and decide the issues raised on merits. Having regard to the long lapse of time, the third respondent is directed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
