Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether, after finding non-compliance with the Board's circular requiring consultation with the Development Commissioner in respect of an export oriented unit, the lower appellate authority ought to have remanded the matter to the original authority instead of allowing the appeal.
Analysis: The impugned order recorded that the Department had not followed the Board's circular dated 28-11-1995 and that the Development Commissioner had not been consulted. Once such a procedural defect was found, the proper course was to remit the matter to the original authority for curing the defect and for a fresh decision after giving the respondents adequate opportunity of hearing. The lower appellate authority, instead of remanding, allowed the appeal outright, which was held to be improper.
Conclusion: The matter was required to be remanded for fresh consideration after compliance with the circular and hearing the respondents.
Final Conclusion: The departmental appeal succeeded, and the dispute was sent back for fresh adjudication in accordance with the prescribed procedure.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a procedural lapse requiring consultation under a binding circular is found, the appropriate course is remand for curing the defect and fresh adjudication after affording hearing.