SHILPI ENTERPRISES Vs. UNION OF INDIA UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As prayed learned counsel for petitioners is permitted to delete the name of petitioner No. 2 from the petition.

(2.) Petitioners seek for quashing of the impugned order dated 19-8-1992 (Annexure A-5 to the petition) passed by respondent No. 2. The petitioners are engaged in the manufacture of electric motors, monoblock P.D. Pump, for manufacturing of which the petitioners purchase ball-bearing and roller-bearing from outside. By order dated 21-5-1992 (Annexure A-3 to the petition), petitioners were informed that they could avail of procedure of Chapter X in regard to ball-bearing and roller-bearing. The contention of the petitioners is that since they were directed to follow the procedure under Chapter X with regard to ball-bearing and roller-bearing, they were not required to pay excise duty on the purchases of those items but by the impugned order dated 19-8-1992, respondent No. 2 has withdrawn the facility of Chapter X abruptly, without giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioners.

(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the standing counsel. The impugned order does not show that any opportunity of being heard was given to the petitioners before the impugned order was passed. The facility provided under Chapter X, Vide Notification No. 64/86 dated 10-2-1986, having been extended to the petitioners several months before, it was the duty of respondent No. 2 to give an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners before passing impugned order dated 19-8-1992. Impugned order dated 19-8-1992 (Annexure A-5) is therefore, quashed and the petition is disposed of with the observation that respondent No. 2 may pass a fresh order to this effect, if he thinks proper, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners.