Aurelec Trust Vs. Additional Collr. of C. Ex.

Aurelec Trust vs Additional Collr. of C. Ex.

Disposition Petition allowed Court Chennai Decided Oct 20, 2000

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/823202

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/823202
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: T. Meenakumari, J.
Decided On: Oct 20, 2000
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 20629 of 1992
Subject: Excise
Disposition: Petition allowed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Writ jurisdiction - Suppression of facts cannot be sustained as the Order-in-Original clearly indicates that the two letters were brought to the notice of the authorities--The findings of the Tribunal liable to be interfered is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for considering afresh--Section 35...

Key legal issue: Excise
Outcome / disposition: Petition allowed
Acts & sections: Central Excises Act, 1944 - Sections 11A and 35C(2)

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Aurelec Trust

Advocate T. Ramesh, Adv.

Respondent

Additional Collr. of C. Ex.

Advocate K. Gunasekaran, A.C.G.S.C.

Legal References

Acts: Central Excises Act, 1944 - Sections 11A and 35C(2)
Reported In: 2001(76)ECC465; 2001(129)ELT35(Mad)

Excerpt

writ jurisdiction - suppression of facts cannot be sustained as the order-in-original clearly indicates that the two letters were brought to the notice of the authorities--the findings of the tribunal liable to be interfered is set aside. the matter is remitted back to the tribunal for considering afresh--section 35c(2), and proviso to section 11a of the central excises and salt act, 1944--article 26 of the constitution of india. - .....to the notice of the tribunal while passing on the order-in-original dated 27-6-1988. learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the findings of the second respondent is erroneous and the letter dated 27-3-1985 in respect of t.i. 68 and t.i. 33d goods along with a letter dated 9-5-1985 has already been brought to the notice of the tribunal which could be seen from a reading of the order-in-original itself. learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that there was no suppression of material facts as observed by the first respondent while dismissing the application and consequently the findings of the second respondent that the above said two letters have not been brought to the notice of the first respondent is an error apparent on the face of the record and the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.3. a reading of the order-in-original passed by the first respondent shows that the above-said letters dated 27-8-1983 and 9-6-1985 have been brought to the notice of the authority and the same have been dealt with by the first respondent in the order-in-original. such being the case. it cannot be said that the petitioner has suppressed the material facts. the findings arrived at by the second respondent tribunal basing on the orders passed by the first respondent in the order-in-original is liable to be interfered with and the same is set aside. the matter is remitted to the second respondent tribunal for considering the matter afresh. the second respondent tribunal shall pass appropriate orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. with the above observations, the writ petition is allowed. no costs, consequently w.m.p. no. 29699 of 1992 is closed.

Full Judgment

ORDER

T. Meenakumari, J.

1. The writ petition is for the issue or writ of certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on the file of the second respondent in E/ROM/553/91, E/Ref/Stay/353/91 & E/Ref/75/91-MAS in E/517/88 (Order No. 70/91), dated 25-11-1991 and quash the orders of the second respondent in E/ROM/553/91 in E/517/88 (Order No. 70/91), dated 25-11-1991 and direct the second respondent to re-dispose the application dated 17-9-1991 presented by the petitioners under Section 35C(2) and to cancel the demand raised by the first respondent in C. No. V/66/15/86-CX Adj./Order No. 1/86, dated 27-6-1986 invoking the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

2. The only reason which weighed with the second respondent Tribunal in dismissing the R.O.M. application filed by the petitioner was that there was no mention of the two letters and there was no indication that the two letters relied on by the petitioner were brought to the notice of the Tribunal while passing on the Order-in-Original dated 27-6-1988. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the findings of the second respondent is erroneous and the letter dated 27-3-1985 in respect of T.I. 68 and T.I. 33D goods along with a letter dated 9-5-1985 has already been brought to the notice of the Tribunal which could be seen from a reading of the Order-in-Original itself. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that there was no suppression of material facts as observed by the first respondent while dismissing the application and consequently the findings of the second respondent that the above said two letters have not been brought to the notice of the first respondent is an error apparent on the face of the record and the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.

3. A reading of the Order-in-Original passed by the first respondent shows that the above-said letters dated 27-8-1983 and 9-6-1985 have been brought to the notice of the authority and the same have been dealt with by the first respondent in the Order-in-Original. Such being the case. It cannot be said that the petitioner has suppressed the material facts. The findings arrived at by the second respondent Tribunal basing on the orders passed by the first respondent in the Order-in-Original is liable to be interfered with and the same is set aside. The matter is remitted to the second respondent Tribunal for considering the matter afresh. The second respondent Tribunal shall pass appropriate orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above observations, the writ petition is allowed. No costs, consequently W.M.P. No. 29699 of 1992 is closed.

Same Court & Year Chennai · 2000 Same Parties Aurelec Trust vs Additional Collr. of C. Ex. Same Subject Excise Same Judge T. Meenakumari, J. Acts & Sections Central Excises Act, 1944 - Sections 11A and 35C(2)

Excise