Gopi Krishna Agarwal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/480351
SubjectConstitution;Customs
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided OnOct-17-1989
Case NumberCivil Misc. Writ Petition No. Nil of 1989
JudgeK.C. Agarwal, A.C.J. and ;R.K. Gulati, J.
Reported in1990(25)ECC412; 1990LC599(Allahabad); 1992(61)ELT223(All)
ActsExcise Act - Sections 129A; Customs Act, 1962
AppellantGopi Krishna Agarwal
RespondentUnion of India (Uoi)
Appellant AdvocateA.P. Mathur, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateShishir Kumar, Adv.
DispositionPetition rejected
Excerpt:
alternative remedy - ex parte orders--remedy against such orders is either to request the authority to recall the order or to appeal against it to higher authority. writ not maintainable. cus. act: section 129a. - - every authority has ancillary and incidental power to recall an order, if it is satisfied that the absence was for the reasons beyond the control of the applicant.order1. having heard shri a.p. mathur learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and shri shishir kumar counsel appearing for the union of india, we are of opinion that there are two alternatives before the petitioner at the present. the first is to move an application for recalling order before the appellate authority on the ground that he could not appear due to reasons beyond his control. every authority has ancillary and incidental power to recall an order, if it is satisfied that the absence was for the reasons beyond the control of the applicant. such an application has not been moved. the petitioner may, if so advised, move now before the appellate authority.2. the other alternative is to file an appeal under section 129a of the excise act. should be customs act - ed.3. for what we have stated above, we do not consider it a fit case for interference.4. the writ petition is rejected.
Judgment:
ORDER

1. Having heard Shri A.P. Mathur learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri Shishir Kumar counsel appearing for the Union of India, we are of opinion that there are two alternatives before the petitioner at the present. The first is to move an application for recalling order before the appellate authority on the ground that he could not appear due to reasons beyond his control. Every authority has ancillary and incidental power to recall an order, if it is satisfied that the absence was for the reasons beyond the control of the applicant. Such an application has not been moved. The petitioner may, if so advised, move now before the appellate authority.

2. The other alternative is to file an appeal under Section 129A of the Excise Act. Should be Customs Act - Ed.

3. For what we have stated above, we do not consider it a fit case for interference.

4. The writ petition is rejected.