At, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. JAIN
For the Appearing Parties: Bharat Ji Agrawal, Piyush Agrawal, S.P. Kesarwani, Advocates.
P.K. JAIN, J
(1) HEARD Sri Bharat Ji Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revisionist and Sri S. P. Kesharwani, learned Standing Counsel.
(2) APPEAL against order passed by the Divisional Level Committee rejecting the application under Section 4-A for grant of eligibility certificate was decided ex parte. The sole contention of sri Bharat Ji Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel is that as many as seven grounds were taken in the order passed by the Divisional Level Committee for rejection of the application which were separately discussed by the revisionist in the memo of appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal did not consider each ground separately while dismissing the appeal and passed slip-shod order observing that the Tribunal has gone through the order of the Divisional Level Committee and material on record and that the Divisional Level Committee has rejected the application for sufficient reasons. His submission is that the Tribunal ought to have considered each and every ground taken by the revisionist before the Tribunal. Sri S. P. Kesharwani, learned Standing counsel has submitted that various defects found by the Divisional Level Committee were not explained by the dealer.
(3) THE first ground taken by the Divisional Level Committee is that the revisionist did not get its unit premises inspected by the Zila Udyog Kendra and in the absence of such inspection it is not possible to find out whether the machinery is new or old. The revisionist in the memo of appeal had specifically stated that the appellant never refused any inspection by the Industries department. Besides this two detailed inquires and surveys were made by the trade tax authorities. The Tribunal ought to have recorded a finding of fact if the revisionist was responsible for non-inspection of the unit of the revisionist. Similarly, it is pointed out that another ground for rejection of the application was that application was made six months after relevant date of commencement of the period of facility. Section 4-A (5) (b), however, provides that if the manufacturer applies for such facility later than the date specified in clause (a), he will be entitled only for part of the period notified under Sub-section (1) which shall be computed from the date of application till the end of the period of facility. Thus, the application for grant of eligibility certificate could not have been rejected on the ground that it was made after expiry of the period of six months from the date of commencement of the period of facility. The Tribunal ought to have considered each and every ground and should have given finding. The Tribunal has not at all applied its mind to the facts of the case and grounds taken by the appellant in its memo of appeal. The i
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
mpugned order, therefore, cannot be sustained. The revision is allowed at the admission stage itself. The impugned order is set aside and the Tribunal is directed to decide the appeal considering each and every ground taken by the appellant in the memo of appeal and it shall give specific finding in this regard.