Kaling Vanidhya Vs. the Commissioner of Customs,

.....had been granted to a person under the relevant provisions of the act, then to set right that mistake, the director should be enabled to exercise his power so as to effectuate the scheme of the act and to implement the purpose behind the act. the fact that the rule making authority has prescribed procedure in exercise of the powers under section 67 for making an application to the director does not mean that the suo motu power which is explicit in section 5(2) of the act is in any way curtailed or taken away. therefore, the contention of the respondent that making an application is sine qua non for invoking the power under section 5(2) of the act is not tenable. -- t.n. estates (abolition & conversion into ryotwari) act, 1948. sections 5(2) & 67; suo motu revisional powers held, on a bare reading of the provisions of section 5(2) of the act, it is clear that the power conferred on the director by section 5(2) to cancel or revise any of the orders, acts or proceedings of the settlement officer is very wide. in the first place, the director need not necessarily be moved by any party in that behalf, and the power could be exercised either on an application by an aggrieved person or suo motu. for example, if the director comes to know that contrary to the scheme of the act or due to misrepresentation or fraud played, a patta had been granted to a person under the relevant provisions of the act, then to set right that mistake, the director should be enabled to exercise his power so as to effectuate the scheme of the act and to implement the purpose behind the act. the fact that the rule making authority has prescribed procedure in exercise of the powers under section 67 for making an application to the director does not mean that the suo motu power which is explicit in section 5(2) of the act is in any way curtailed or taken away. therefore, the contention of the respondent that making an application is sine qua non for invoking the power under section 5(2) of..........above said exported items under sub.s. no. nil at nil% whereas the said amount of rs. 5,14,694/- paid erroneously was recoverable under rule 16 of the customs and central excise duties drawback rules, 1995 read with section 75(ab) of the customs act, 1962. thus, the petitioner was directed to pay the said amount within fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of the demand notice with interest. the notice further proceeds to say that if the petitioner is inclined to give any explanation to the same, that may be given orally or in writing on or before 26.9.2003 and thereafter, orders will be passed in accordance with law.2. it is the case of the petitioner that immediately, the petitioner informed the respondents that the impugned demand-cum-show cause notice is barred by limitation and in view of the bar of limitation, the second respondent has no jurisdiction to issue the notice dated 16.9.2003. in spite of that, the second respondent called upon the petitioner to appear for an enquiry. this is the only objection raised in this case.3. i have heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials on record.4. the explanation submitted by the petitioner is dated 18.10.2004 wherein the crucial point of bar of limitation has been taken. even non-mentioning of the bar of limitation cannot prevent the petitioner from raising this point at the time of enquiry. hence, i am of the view that without keeping the writ petition pending, the writ petition can be disposed of directing the petitioner to appear for the enquiry by giving liberty to the petitioner to take the point of bar of limitation in addition to the objections raised by letter dated 18.10.2004.5. hence, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to appear before the respondents for enquiry permitting the petitioner to take the point of bar of limitation also, face the enquiry and proceed further. the respondents are directed to consider the objections filed by.....