1968 (4) TMI 22

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y of a sum of Rs. 6,810.32 P. as duty and penalty be quashed. 2.By an order dated 17-5-1962, the Superintendent of Central Excise, Mainpuri, imposed a penalty of Rs. 100/- on Shri Latoori Mal, Proprietors M/s. Latoori Mal Ram Swaroop of Barhan, for contravention of rule 151 (c) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. He also directed that duty may also be charged on the shortage not satisfactorily e....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Mal. It could not be enforced against the petitioner. The petitioner does not say that he did not inherit the assets of his father in relation to the excise business. Further, his allegation that his father was the licensee has been controverted in the counter-affidavit, where it has been stated that the petitioner had made an application for licence in 1960. The petitioner himself was the licens....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Duty may also be charged on the shortage not satisfactorily explained at the appropriate rate under rule 160 of the C. Ex. Rules, 1944." 5.When this order was communicated, a typing error was committed inasmuch as instead of the petitioner's name being mentioned, the name of Latoori Mal as the proprietor of the firm was typed in the order. All along the proceedings were directed against the pet....