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 the appellate order of the Central Board of Revenue, stating that the order of the Collector shall be vacated "without prejudice to the merits of the case", could be construed as a direction authorising the Collector to conduct a de novo enquiry and revive jurisdiction in the original tribunal.
Analysis: Under the scheme of Section 35 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, the appeal carries the matter to the appellate authority, whose powers are wide enough to confirm, alter, annul, or remit the matter. Once the appellate authority disposes of the appeal, the original tribunal's jurisdiction is not revived unless the appellate order expressly directs a fresh enquiry or remand. The words "without prejudice to the merits of the case" indicate only that the appellate authority did not decide the dispute on merits; they do not themselves amount to a remand or confer jurisdiction on the Collector to reopen the proceedings. A secret administrative communication cannot be treated as part of the appellate order, and an analogy from certiorari proceedings is inapposite to the statutory appellate scheme.
Conclusion: The appellate order did not authorise a de novo enquiry by the Collector, and the writ prohibiting further proceedings was rightly granted.