RAJ KUMAR Vs. MINISTRY OF FINANCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against revisional order dated 22.4.80 passed by the Central Govt. in review case No. 407/80 whereby it set aside order dated 30.4.76 (the date wrongly mentioned as 13.8.76) passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi.

(2.) The undisputed facts are that toe petitioners are, inter alia, manufacturing circlips of various sizes and specifications as a small-scale industry under the name and style of M/s. Union Corp., Bharatpur. Some of the circlips manufactured by them are used in the pistons meant for motor-vehicles while others are used in various other types of machinery. In the relevant year i.e. 1975-76 the petitioner submitted a classification list showing various types of circlips manufactured by them. The said list was approved provisionally by the concerned Asstt. Collector, Central Excise. Eventually, however, the classification was rejected vide order dated 15.5 76 on the ground that all kinds of circlips which were used in motor-vehicle parts were excis-able under item No. 34-A of the Central Excise Tariff which dealt with parts and accessories of motor-vehicles not otherwise specified. It may, however, be pertinent to notice here that some notifications exempting some motor-vehicle parts were issued from time to time, notification No. 14/75-C.E. dated 1.3.75 which is relevant to the case on hand being one such notification. The effect of said notification was that certain items mentioned in the schedule were not exempted. One of the items appearing at serial No. 6 comprised (a) pistons (b) piston rings (c) gudgeon pins, and (d) circlips. The contention of the petitioners was that circlips which were meant for pistons only were excisable while all other kinds of circlips whether used in motor-vehicle parts or other machinery were exempt from duty of excise. However, this plea did not find favour with the Asstt. Collector who, as stated above, made order dated 15,5.76 holding that all categories of circlips which were used in motor-vehicle parts were excisable. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner went in appeal which was allowed by the Appellate Collector vide order dated 30.7.76. Thereafter the Central Govt. revised the said order suo motu in exercise of the power u/s 36(2) Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 (for short 'the Act') which had been Raj Kumar vs. Min. of Finance inserted in S. 36 by Act 16 of 1972. Since the order of the Appellte Collector were reversed by the Central Govt. the petitioners have filed this writ petition to challenge the same.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners has, inter alia, canvassed that the petitioners on receipt of a show cause notice dated 29.7.77 (annexure T) had represented in their letter dated 23.8.77 (annexure 'K') to the Govt, that an oral hearing be granted to them. However, no oral hearing was given by Central Govt. before passing the impugned order. Hence, it is liable to be quashed on this short ground in view of the clear language of the first proviso to S. 36(2). The said provision is: