Skip to content


Ratti Ram Tobacco Dealer Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectExcise
CourtDelhi High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Writ No. 271/1969
Judge
Reported in1978(2)ELT505(Del)
ActsCentral Excise Act, 1944 - Sections 12, 35 and 36; Customs Act, 1962 - Sections 129
AppellantRatti Ram Tobacco Dealer
RespondentUnion of India (Uoi) and ors
Cases ReferredCochin and Ors. v. A.S. Bava
Excerpt:
- .....of the fact that there was no statutory power on the part of the revisional authority, namely, the central government to review the decision which had been passed earlier in the revision petition. it is seen that the above said decision of the supreme court was rendered subsequent to the decision of the revision petition, which lead to the application for review.3. i would have normally inclined to consider this submission of shri brij bans kishore on the question of costs, if that was the ground which had been stated in the government's reply (annexure f to the petition). the reply reads as follows :-'i am directed to refer to your representation dated 27.11.1968 addressed to the secretary to the government of india on the above subject and to say that the government of india had.....
Judgment:

S. Rangarajan, J.

1. The only question for decision in the Civil Writ petition is covered by the authority of the Supreme Court in Collector of Customs and Excise, Cochin and Ors. v. A.S. Bava 1978 E.L.T. J 333 to the following effect :-

'Under Section 36 of the Central Excises and Salt Act 1944, a person aggrieved by any decision or order has an unfettered right to appeal. Section 129 of the Customs Act, 1962, which is made applicable to duties imposed under the Central Excises and Salt Act by notification under Section 12 of the Act requires the appellant to deposit the duty or penalty pending an appeal. Section 129 thus whittles down the substantive right of appeal under Section 35 and accordingly it cannto be regarded as 'procedure relating to appeal' within Section 12 of the Central Excises and Salt Act. The notification, dated 4-5-1963 applying Section 129 of the Customs Act is, thereforee, invalid.'

2. The petitioner's appeal in this case was rejected for non-deposit of excise duty which order was confirmed by the revisional authority which, despite its attention being drawn to the decision of the Supreme Court, declined to review its decision. Shri Brij Bans Kishore, who is unable to distinguish the above Supreme Court decision contends that no costs need be awarded in this case in view of the fact that there was no statutory power on the part of the revisional authority, namely, the Central Government to review the decision which had been passed earlier in the revision petition. It is seen that the above said decision of the Supreme Court was rendered subsequent to the decision of the revision petition, which lead to the application for review.

3. I would have normally inclined to consider this submission of Shri Brij Bans Kishore on the question of costs, if that was the ground which had been stated in the Government's reply (Annexure F to the petition). The reply reads as follows :-

'I am directed to refer to your representation dated 27.11.1968 addressed to the Secretary to the Government of India on the above subject and to say that the Government of India had carefully considered your case while passing the revisional orders communicated to you, which may please be treated as 'final' '

4. It may be noticed that the above said reply was given in spite of the specific reliance by the petitioner in his application for review on the above said decision of the Supreme Court.

5. In the circumstances the order of the appellate authority and the revisional authority is quashed and the appeal preferred by the petitioner is directed to be heard without insisting on the payment of the excise duty.

6. I make no order as to costs in this writ.


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