PARLE INTERNATIONAL LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short submission of learned counsel for petitioners is that the petitioners had completed inspection of record on 18-1-1995 having obtained extension of fifteen days from the respondents and thereafter the petitioners intended to file reply within fifteen days. But the Collector of Customs & Excise, Meerut, respondent No. 2 wrongly stating that no steps were taken by the petitioners to make inspection of the record, passed impugned ex-parte order dated 24-1-1995 (Annexure '3' to the petition).

(2.) It is pointed out by the counsel for the petitioners from the affidavit sworn for the petitioners and from other record that the fact is that inspection of record was made by the petitioners and that they intended to file reply within fifteen days from the date of the completion of inspection, but before their reply was filed, respondent No. 2 being under an erroneous impression that the petitioners are not taking any steps in the matter, passed the impugned order. It is further submitted that such impression was formed by respondent No. 2 because inspection of record had been made by the petitioners in the office of Director General (Anti-Evasion), Meerut and not in the office of respondent No. 2. In the impugned order, it is said by respondent No. 2 that the petitioner took no steps at all to make inspection and then to file reply.

(3.) Be that as it may, since the counsel for the petitioners undertakes before us to file a reply within a week and further states that there is no intention of petitioners to delay the order of respondent No. 2 in any way and to stall the proceedings, we are of the view that the petitioners should be given an opportunity of filing a reply which they undertake to file within a week from today.