1995 (8) TMI 280

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Shri V. Sridharan learned Advocate appearing for the party strenuously argued that appeal is maintainable against trade notice. Referring to the letter C. No. IV(16)97/T/94, dated 1-2-1995 issued by the Assistant Collector (T), Chandigarh, he submitted that it is not a mere letter but a communication issued by the Assistant Collector as directed by the Collector and accordingly communication read with trade notice is an appealable order and the Tribunal is vested with the inherent power to entertain an appeal against an order or decision including communication with reference to trade notice and he referred to the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Union of India v. Shri Shadi Lal Sugar and General Mills Ltd. reported in ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rade Notice 112/94-C.E. does not call for any modification. This communication was also again challenged by the party before the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana and the same has been rejected as per order in CWP No. 2030 of 1995, dated 8-2-1995. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that since the High Court in the CWP No. 1088 of 1995, dated 20-1-1995 observed, all issues are kept open while rejecting the petition, it was of the view that alternative remedies should be exhausted. Hence, the appellant is seeking the remedy by way of filing the appeal before the Tribunal. On going through the respective orders we do not find any specific directions or observations and as can be seen from the order dated 8-2-1995 passed by....