https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185601 An excise licence suspension under Section 31(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 could not be sustained where no show-cause notice or opportunity of representation was given and no enquiry had been initiated. The proviso to Section 31(1) required a prior opportunity before cancellation or suspension, and Rule 66 operated within the same statutory scheme. Because the order proceeded on a concluded finding of wilful breach and malpractice rather than as a lawful interim step pending enquiry, it was invalid both as a provisional suspension and as a final punitive order. The authorities were left free to proceed afresh in accordance with the Act and Rules. en-us Fri, 16 Dec 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 20 Aug 2016 17:43:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185601 An excise licence suspension under Section 31(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 could not be sustained where no show-cause notice or opportunity of representation was given and no enquiry had been initiated. The proviso to Section 31(1) required a prior opportunity before cancellation or suspension, and Rule 66 operated within the same statutory scheme. Because the order proceeded on a concluded finding of wilful breach and malpractice rather than as a lawful interim step pending enquiry, it was invalid both as a provisional suspension and as a final punitive order. The authorities were left free to proceed afresh in accordance with the Act and Rules. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 16 Dec 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185601