Quasi-judicial factory stuffing refusals must rest on valid customs grounds; common premises and unproven association cannot justify denial.

An order refusing factory stuffing permission, when passed on an assessee's application after remand and affecting civil consequences, is quasi-judicial and appealable; the authority's reliance on a trade-notice-based precedent was inapplicable. Denial of permission on the basis of an alleged association with another entity and a common address was unsustainable, because the entities were treated as separate legal persons, the adverse-inference individual had been exonerated in the connected matter, and common premises alone was not a legal bar under customs law. The refusal was set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the order refusing factory stuffing permission was an administrative order or an appealable quasi-judicial order. (ii) Whether denial of factory stuffing permission on the grounds of the association of the appellant with another entity and common address was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the order refusing factory stuffing permission was an administrative order or an appealable quasi-judicial order.

Analysis: The refusal was passed on an application made by the assessee after remand for a speaking order. An order passed on a representation or application affecting civil consequences is quasi-judicial in nature and is appealable. The authority's reliance on a case dealing with a decision based on a trade notice was held to be inapplicable.

Conclusion: The impugned order was held to be a quasi-judicial and appealable order.

Issue (ii): Whether denial of factory stuffing permission on the grounds of the association of the appellant with another entity and common address was sustainable.

Analysis: The two concerns were treated as separate legal entities. The person relied upon for the adverse inference had already been exonerated in the connected matter, and shareholding by that person did not justify denial of permission. The mere fact that two firms operated from the same premises was held to be no legal bar under customs law for grant of factory stuffing permission.

Conclusion: The denial of factory stuffing permission was held unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The refusal of factory stuffing permission was set aside and the appellant obtained the requested relief.

Ratio Decidendi: An order passed on an assessee's application deciding rights or liabilities is quasi-judicial and appealable, and denial of customs permission cannot rest on irrelevant considerations such as common premises or an unsubstantiated association with another legal entity.

---