SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(SC) 162

B.N.KIRPAL, J.S.VERMA
COLLECTOR OF central EXCISE,calcutta – Appellant
Versus
PRADYUMNA STEEL LTD. – Respondent


( 1 ) LEAVE granted.

( 2 ) AN application for rectification was made by the Department to the tribunal for rectification of its order dated 23/6/1987 deciding the appeal. In the main order, the only relevant part is contained in para 4 thereof, with which alone the other member of the bench expressed his concurrence. In that part of the order, it was held that the provision mentioned in the show-cause noticebeing inapplicable, the show cause notice was invalid and the correct provision to show-cause could not be seen to support the validity of the notice. The application for rectification made by the Department was on the ground that the mere mention of an incorrect provision of law in the show cause notice was not sufficient to invalidate the same and a decision was relied on in support of this proposition to make out the ground of an error apparent on the face of the order. This application has been rejected by the tribunal. Hence, this appeal by special leave.

( 3 ) IT is settled that mere mention of a wrong provision of law when the power exercised is available even though under a different provision, is by itself not sufficient to invalidate the exercise of that power. Thus, t


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top