Skip to content


Dalmia Biscuits (P) Ltd. Vs. Inspector of Central Excise and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectExcise
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Writ Petition No. 1502 of 1974
Judge
Reported in1992(38)ECC173; 1982(10)ELT350(P& H)
ActsConstitution of India - Article 226
AppellantDalmia Biscuits (P) Ltd.
Respondentinspector of Central Excise and ors.
Appellant Advocate R.P. Sawhney, Adv.
Respondent Advocate H.S. Brar, Adv.
Excerpt:
natural justice - central excise--order of assistant collector passed without giving opportunity of hearing to assessee, though asked for by the assessee--appellate order also passed without giving opportunity of hearing to assessee--revising authority hearing assessee but not passing speaking order--illegal--all orders liable to be quashed--assistant collector to hear assessee and pass fresh order. - sections 80 (2) & 89 & punjab motor vehicles rules, 1989, rules 85 & 80: [t.s. thakur, cj, jasbir singh & surya kant, jj] appeal against orders of state or regional transport authority imitation held, a stipulation regarding the period of limitation available for invoking the remedy shall have to be strictly construed. that is because any provision by way of limitation is in the nature of..........before passing the impugned order, annexure p. 3. concededly, the assistant collector of central excise and customs, ludhiana did not afford a personal hearing to the petitioner, though specifically asked for in the reply given to the show cause notice. the basic flaw being there, it was not even cured at the appellate stage inasmuch as the appellate authority too did not grant a personal hearing to the petitioner in support of his appeal. that is patent from the order, annexure p. 7, passed by the appellate collector, central excise, new delhi. and lastly the revision petition of the petitioner was disposed of by the union of india without a speaking order, annexure p. 9, though personal hearing was given to the petitioner.2. since illegality in the basic order pointed out by.....
Judgment:

M.M. Punchhi, J.

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is being partially conceded. The counsel for the Union of Indin is rightly of the view that a personal hearing should have been granted' 'to the petitioner before passing the impugned order, Annexure P. 3. Concededly, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Ludhiana did not afford a personal hearing to the petitioner, though specifically asked for in the reply given to the show cause notice. The basic flaw being there, it was not even cured at the appellate stage inasmuch as the appellate authority too did not grant a personal hearing to the petitioner in support of his appeal. That is patent from the order, Annexure P. 7, passed by the Appellate Collector, Central Excise, New Delhi. And lastly the revision petition of the petitioner was disposed of by the Union of India without a speaking order, Annexure P. 9, though personal hearing was given to the petitioner.

2. Since illegality in the basic order pointed out by the petitioner has been conceded to, equally, while quashing the said order, Annexure P. 3, the remaining order, Annexures P. 7 and P. 9, too have to be quashed. It is ordered accordingly. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise and Customs, Ludhiana will now rehear the matter after giving the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing. There is no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //