TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court quashes Assistant Collector's order, directs fair reconsideration</h1> <h3>TUNGBHADRA SUGAR WORKS PRIVATE LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF C. EX.</h3> TUNGBHADRA SUGAR WORKS PRIVATE LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF C. EX. - 1992 (61) E.L.T. 592 (Kar.) Issues:Claim for payment of balance amount under rebate for excess sugar production. Failure of Assistant Collector to pass an order on merits. Dispute over the amount payable to the petitioner. Lack of consideration of representation by Assistant Collector. Challenge to the order of Assistant Collector.Analysis:The case involved a dispute regarding the payment of a balance amount under rebate for excess sugar production by the petitioner's factory. The petitioner claimed a balance amount of Rs. 3,43,203.55 based on notifications issued by the Central Government. However, the Chief Accounts Officer contended that the petitioner was not entitled to the claimed amount. The petitioner made multiple representations to various authorities seeking the payment of the balance amount.The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Davanagere, in an order dated 9-3-1987, rejected the petitioner's representation without considering the merits of the claim. The High Court noted that the Assistant Collector erred in not passing an order on the merits of the representation submitted by the petitioner. The Court emphasized that when a representation is made to an administrative authority, it is essential for the authority to consider, verify, and decide upon it.The Court highlighted that the Assistant Collector failed to acknowledge the Tribunal's observation that the Chief Accounts Officer lacked the competence to pass an adjudicatory order. The Court criticized the Assistant Collector for not comprehending the implications of the Tribunal's observation and for passing an order without proper consideration. The Court concluded that the Assistant Collector's order was misconceived and lacked the exercise of discretion.Ultimately, the High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the order of the Assistant Collector dated 9-3-1987, and directed the Assistant Collector to reconsider the petitioner's representation, provide a reasonable opportunity for a hearing, and dispose of the matter on merits and in accordance with the law promptly. The Court did not award any costs in this case.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
