Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Chhota Lal Keshav Ram vs Collector Of Central Excise on 13 January, 1993
Equivalent citations: 1993ECR102(TRI.-DELHI), 1993(67)ELT916(TRI-DEL)
ORDER Lajja Ram, Member (T)
1. It is an appeal against the Order-in-Original No. 35/Ch. 24/89/Addl. Collr., dated 12-5-1989, [issued from File No. V (Ch. 24) 15-1/88/Adj.], passed by the Additional Collector, Central Excise, Indore, against M/s. Chhota Lal Keshav Ram (Biri Factory), Kamptee Line, Rajnandgaon (M.P.).
2. M/s. Chhota Lai Keshav Ram (hereinafter referred to as the appellants') were engaged in the manufacture of hand-made branded biris, falling under erstwhile sub-item II (3) (ii) of Tariff Item No. 4 of the Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). On scrutiny of their records, it was found that they had manufactured hand-made branded biris at their factories situated at Dongergarh and Rajnandgaon, and had removed them without payment of Central Excise duty, and without following the procedure as prescribed under the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'). The appellants were required to show cause to the Additional Collector, Central Excise, Indore, as to why Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 48,558.41 on 1,26,12,575 hand-made branded biris removed during the financial years 1981-82 to 1984-85 should not be recovered from them under Rule 9(2) of the Rules, read with Section 11A of the Act, and why penalty should not be imposed upon them under Rules 9(2), 52A, 209 and 226 of the Rules.
3. In the Order-in-Original issued from file No. V (Ch. 24) 15-1 /88/Adj., on 12-5-1989 by the Additional Collector, Central Excise, Indore, the appellants were ordered to pay Central Excise duty on hand-made branded biris manufactured during the period 10-10-1983 to 1984-85 under Section 11A of the Act. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Bhilai was asked to work out the Central Excise duty afresh on hand-made branded biris removed during the period 10-10-1983 to 1984-85, and was asked to demand the same from the appellants. The Additional Collector, Central Excise, Indore also imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000 on the appellants, under Rules 9(2), 52A, 209 and 226 of the Rules.
4. Being aggrieved, the appellants have come in appeal to the CEGAT on the following grounds:-
(1) The case of the department is based on presumptions, and not on established facts. The department has sought to implicate the appellants on the basis of the records whose origin is obscure, and which have been handed over to the department by a disgruntled ex-employee of the appellant firm. Obviously the complainant had manipulated the accounts with a view to take revenge on the appellant firm, which had turned him out of employment. No investigation was made by the department to find out the truth. In the adjudication order passed by the Additional Collector, the duty sought to be confirmed has not been quantified.
(2) The case of the department is based not on the records of the appellants firm but on the basis of the records recovered from the residence of the said ex-employee who was not on amiable terms with them. The relied upon documents were not recovered from their factory or from their office.
(3) The Central Excise duty has been demanded in respect of biris which did not belong to the appellant firm. The duty has been demanded in respect of biris of M/s. Jay Gayatri Maa Tobacco products, Dongergaon, an another registered partnership firm. The records relied upon had nothing to do with the brands of the appellants.
(4) There is nothing in the order appealed against about the source of supply of tobacco, its receipt accountal, consumption, sale etc., in respect of the biris alleged to have been produced without accountal. No investigation had been made about the unsubstantiated statement made by the complainant.
(5) The show cause notice had been issued by the Additional Collector invoking the extended period of limitation, even beyond the maximum period of limitation of 5 years, while under law only Collector, Central Excise was competent to issue show cause notice in cases where extended period of limitation not beyond the period of five years is being invoked.
(6) The show cause notice was issued for a period of 7 years without establishing fraud, mis-statement, suppression of facts, collusion or contravention of any rules. There is no authority under law to demand duty beyond a period of 5 years. As such, show cause notice was illegal.
(7) The appellants firm was working under physical control system and the assessments of the firm had already been finalised under physical control system.
5. The case was fixed for hearing on 16-12-1992 when the Order-in-Original passed by the Additional Collector, Central Excise, Indore was assailed by the appellants on the grounds of (1) Jurisdiction, (2) Limitation, (3) Adjudication Order not being a speaking Order, and (4) The Order being deficient in as far as the quantification of the demand was concerned.
6. With regard to the jurisdiction, it was submitted that the show cause notice had been issued by the Additional Collector while under Section 11A of the Act, the demand of duty beyond a period of 6 months could only be made by the Collector of Central Excise.
7. Shri N.L. Srivastava, the learned Advocate appearing for the appellants invited attention to Tribunal's decision in the case of Elcobex Metals (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise [1992 (58) E.L.T. 108 (Tribunal)] in which it has been held by the Tribunal that the show cause notice issued by the Deputy Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur on 6-3-1986 demanding duty of Rs. 11,83,19,476.94 for the period from 1-3-1981 to 5-12-1985 was not only without jurisdiction for the purposes of demand of duty but the entire proceedings initiated with reference to that show cause notice were also without jurisdiction for the other purposes.
8. On the point of limitation the learned Advocate for the appellants referred to the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad decision in the case of Navsari Cotton and Silk Mills Ltd. v. Union of India [1992 (60) E.L.T. 110 (Guj.)]. In that case, Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has held that the show cause notice issued on 24-5-1983 for the period between Aug. 4,1976 to Dec. 31,1976, was barred by the prescribed period of limitation.
9. Learned Departmental Representative, Shri Rakesh Bhatia, S.D.R. submitted that the physical control did not mean excise control for all the 24 hours and that there was no bar to raise the demand for the period prescribed under Section 11 A, in respect of the manufacturers working under physical control system. He added that in the adjudication Order, demand of duty has been restricted to a period of 5 years. He reiterated the Cross Objections on grounds of appeal, filed by the department in the case.
10. We have carefully considered the points made by the learned Advocate for the appellants and the learned Departmental Representative.
11. Before discussing other points raised before us, we would like to dispose of the matter relating to the jurisdiction of the Additional Collector, Central Excise, with regard to issuing show cause notice under Section 11A of the Act, invoking the extended period of Limitation, that is beyond a period of six months.
12. The appellants have submitted that in a case where extended period of limitation is invoked, the Additional Collector of Central Excise was not competent to issue the show cause notice under Section 11A of the Act. In support, they have cited the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Elecobex Metals (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise (supra). The Tribunal has held in that case that in cases where short levy has arisen by reason of fraud, collusion or any wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts, the notice has to be issued by the Collector after the amendment effective from 15-11-1980 by Section 21 of the Customs, Central Excises and Salt Act, Central Board of Revenue Amendment Act, 1978.
13. In that case before the Tribunal, the show cause notice had been issued by the Deputy Collector of Central Excise. In the case before us, the show cause notice has been issued by the Additional Collector, Central Excise. Thus the decision of the Tribunal in the Elcobex Metals case is not applicable to the case before us.
14. At the outset, we may refer that the appellants have come to the Tribunal in appeal against the Order-in-Original passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, as under the scheme of the Act and the Rules, the Additional Collector of Central Excise is an officer not subordinate to the Collector. The Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Regional Bench, by the Order, dated 12-2-1985 [referred to in the case Bonsai Industrial Gases (Bihar) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise -1988 (37) E.L.T. 347 (Cal.)], considered all the case laws for the determination of the question whether the post of an Additional Collector is lower in rank to the post of Collector of Central Excise or not and held that the post of Additional Collector of Central Excise was not lower in rank to the post of Collector of Central Excise and as such the appeal would lie to the appellate Tribunal in view of the provisions of Section 35B of the Act. Para 3 of the said judgment is re-produced below:-
"3. By the said show cause issued by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Patna on 27th of March, 1985 the petitioner company was required to pay the Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 62,874 under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 read with Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and also a penalty of Rs. 5000/-. For contravention of Central Excise duty. In the said proceeding, the petitioner company was found liable to pay a sum of Rs. 62,874 and a penalty of Rs. 5,000/-. Thereafter, against the said order dated 27th of March, 1984 passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Patna, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) on 9-10-1984. Thereafter, the said appeal was not entertained by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Calcutta as he had no jurisdiction to entertain the said appeal and it was held by him that against the order of the Additional Collector the appeal would lie before the Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. At that stage, the petitioner company moved a writ application before this Court whereupon Amitabha Dutta, J. passed an order dated 18-9-1984 whereby it was ordered that "upon the petitioner's withdrawing before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi and furnishing proof of such withdrawal, it will be permitted by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) to refile the appeal before him within three weeks from this date and in that event the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) shall decide the question of jurisdiction to hear the appeal after giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard and pass a reasoned order on that question..."
Pursuant to the said direction passed by this Court, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Calcutta heard the matter and held that the said appeal was not maintainable before the said authority, inasmuch as the post of the Additional Collector of Central Excise was equivalent to the post of Collector of Central Excise and as such the appeal would lie under the law before the Appellate Tribunal, and the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Calcutta also passed an order restraining the Central Excise Officer, Patna not to enforce the demand of extra duty as well as penalty until CEGAT, Calcutta Bench passed an interim order or final order in the appeal to be filed by the petitioner. Against this order the petitioner filed another application before this Court whereupon I disposed of the writ application on 15-1-1985 to refile the appeal before CEGAT, Calcutta, which was returned by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Calcutta by the order dated 27-10-1984, within a period of three weeks from that date and the said authority will decide the issue about the maintainability of the appeal before the Tribunal in view of the two decisions cited by the petitioner which were reported in 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1964 and 1983 (12) E.L.T. 645 and other decisions that might be placed before the Tribunal within a month from the date of presentation of appeal. The impugned order was passed pursuant to the direction given by me on 15th of January, 1985 by which the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Regional Bench by the order dated 12th February, 1985 considered all the case laws for the determination of the question whether the post of an Additional Collector is lower in rank to the post of Collector of Central Excise or not, and held that the post of Additional Collector of Central Excise was not lower in rank to the post of Collector of Central Excise and as such the appeal would lie to the Appellate Tribunal in view of the provisions of Section 35(B) of the Central Excises and Salt Act. Under Section 35 of the said Act, appeal lies to the Collector of Central Excise if the order is passed by a Central Excise Officer who is lower in rank than the Collector of Central Excise, whereas appeal to the Appellate Tribunal would lie if the decision or order is passed by the Collector of Central Excise as an adjudicating authority."
15. Under the scheme of the Act, there is no definition of the Collector. The Central Excise Officer has been defined as any Officer of the Central Excise department or any person (including Officer of the State Government) invested by Central Board of Excise and Customs, constituted under the Central Board of Revenue Act, with any of the powers of a Central Excise Officer under the Act. In various Sections, there is reference to the Collector and the Assistant Collector but there is no reference to the Additional Collector.
16. Under the rules, the Collector has been defined with reference to the territorial jurisdiction. Under Rule 2(ii) of the Rules, the definition of 'Collector' apart from defining what a Collector is also contains an inclusive clause. The inclusive part of the definition includes within the definition of Collector an Additional Collector. It also includes any Officer specially authorised under Rule 4 or 5 to exercise throughout any State or any specified area therein all or any of the powers of a Collector under those rules. The rules are to be read as part of the Act. As observed by the High Court of Delhi in the case - Duncan Agro Industries Ltd. v. Union of India [1989 (39) E.L.T. 211 (Del.)], Rules made under a statute have to be treated for all purposes of construction or obligation exactly as if they were in the Act and are to be of the same effect as if contained in the Act. The Hon'ble High Court has further added in Para 24 of their judgment that every provision of a statute has to be given full effect to. The Court cannot place a construction on a provision which would tend to make it redundant. On the contrary, the Court's duty is to give effect to all portions of a statute. One of the principles for construction is that a statute ought to be so construed that if possible no word shall be superfluous, void or insignificant.
17. In the case Bansal Industrial Gases (Bihar) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise [1988 (37) E.L.T. 347 (Cal.)] decided by the High Court at Calcutta, the question of law involved was whether the Additional Collector, Central Excise is an authority lower in rank to the Collector of Central Excise, or not. In that case the show cause notice had been issued by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, and the Adjudication Order had also been passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise.
18. The Hon'ble High Court observed that when 'Collector' has been defined extensively, and when it was provided that the word 'Collector' includes Additional Collector it must be held that the word "Additional Collector" is included within the definition of the word 'Collector'. It was added that in order to establish that the post of Additional Collector is subordinate in rank to the word 'Collector', it must be shown from the Act and the rules framed thereunder that the Additional Collector had been conferred with some specific powers and/or under the provisions of the Act, it could be found out that the Additional Collector is inferior in rank and was to work under the control and supervision of the Collector. When the definition made it clear that the Collector includes Additional Collector and when other rules do not at all refer to the words 'Additional Collector' anywhere in the Act and the Rules framed thereunder, it must be held that the meaning is clear and that word 'Collector' includes 'Additional Collector'. In the rules, reference is there to the expression 'Collector', 'Deputy Collector', 'Assistant Collector', 'Inspector' but there was no reference to the word 'Additional 'Collector' inasmuch as the word 'Collector' includes the 'Additional Collector'.
19. According to the Hon'ble High Court, the decision taken by the Additional Collector means a decision taken by the Collector for the purposes of appeal and the authority competent to hear the appeal against the Order of the Collector is only competent to hear and dispose of the appeal from the decision of the Additional Collector. The Hon'ble High Court clarified that the post of Additional Collector comes within the definition of the word 'Collector' and the Additional Collector had to discharge the power and function of a Collector and accordingly appeal would lie to the Appellate Tribunal under Section 35(B) of the Act.
20. At this stage, it may be mentioned that under the Central Excise (4th Amendment) Rules, 1992 [Notification No. 11/92-C.E. (NT), dated 14-5-1992]. Rule 2 of the Central Excises Rules have been amended and for the words "and includes an Additional Collector" carry after Clause (B) the words, Letters and Figures "and includes an Additional Collector except for the purposes of Chapter VIA of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944" have been substituted. Chapter VIA of the Act relates to appeals.
21. The purport of this amendment is that now the appeal against the Order of the Additional Collector will lie to the Collector (Appeals) and not to the Tribunal.
22. In the case of Engineering Systems (P) Ltd. v. Union of India [1992 (57) E.L.T. 12 (Kar.)] decided by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore, the three orders had been passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, in terms of the provisions of sub-section (l)/sub section (2) of Section 11A of the Act. In one case, the period covered was between 21-6-1983 and 28-8-1984. The Hon'ble High Court observed in that case that an Additional Collector is a Collector under the rules and that he may exercise the powers of a Collector, notwithstanding any specific conferment of power, by the Board in terms of Section 11A of the Act or any other provisions of the Act, regarding the duties and functions required to be performed by the Additional Collector. It was held that the orders passed in terms of the provisions of Section 11A of the Act by the Additional Collector were passed by an authority who had competent jurisdiction, and, therefore, they did not suffer from want of jurisdiction.
23. Thus, the plea taken on behalf of the appellants that the Additional Collector had no jurisdiction to issue show cause notice in this case merit rejection.
24. It may be added that in a number of cases the Tribunal has taken a view that in case where short-levy has arisen by reason of fraud, collusion or any wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts the competent authority to issue show cause notice is the Collector. But in none of those cases, the show cause notice had been issued by an Additional Collector.
25. In the case - Mysore Pre-Fabs and Pre-fabs India v. Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore [1987 (27) E.L.T. 487 (Tri.)], decided by the CEGAT, South Regional Bench, Madras, the show cause notice in pursuance of which the Order appealed against was passed, was issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise on 27-12-1985, invoking the extended period of limitation, envisaged by Section 11A of the Act. It was observed by the Tribunal that on and from 27-12-1985 by reason of the Amendment of the Central Excises and Salt (Amendment) Act, 1985, it was only the Collector who was the competent authority to issue the show cause notice by invoking the extended period of limitation under Section 11A of the Act. The Tribunal came to the finding that the very issuance of the show cause notice itself was without jurisdiction, and was not legally valid, and consequently the impugned Order in consequence of the said show cause notice was also legally not tenable.
26. In the H. Guru Instruments (North India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise [1989 (40) E.L.T. 80 (Tri.)] the notice to the appellants calling upon them to show cause why duty should not be demanded from them was issued by the Deputy Collector on 21-1-1986; the period for which the duty was proposed to be demanded being 1-1-1983 to 25-7-1985. The CEGAT observed that in a case where the Revenue proposed to invoke the extended period of 5 years for demand of duty from a manufacturer alleging suppression, wilful mis-statement of facts etc., on the part of the manufacturer, the notice to show cause should be issued by the Collector.
27. In the case - Elcobex (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, referred to above, the show cause notice was issued by the Deputy Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur.
28. The High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in the case - Gujarat State Fertilisers Company Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. [1988 (34) E.L.T. 442] had also observed that the Collector, Central Excise only can issue a show cause notice if the Department seeks to invoke the proviso to sub-Section (1) of Section 11A of the Act. In that case, the Superintendent, Central Excise had issued the show cause notice on 15-1-1987 demanding duty of excise for the period from 1-1-1981 to 30-11-1986. The Hon'ble High Court were of the opinion that the notice in that case was illegal and in contravention of sub-Section (1) of Section 11A of the Act.
29. As is seen in none of those cases the show cause notice was issued by the Additional Collector. The notice invoking the extended period of limitation had been issued by Officers lower in rank to that of Collector.
30. As we have come to finding that Collector includes Additional Collector, we hold that there is no infirmity with regard to jurisdiction of the Additional Collector issuing show cause notice invoking an extended period of limitation.
31. As regards the rest of the points urged before us, as we propose to accept the appeal on merits of the case, we do not consider it necessary to deal with them.
32. Now we come to the merits of the case.
33. The case of the department is based on the 32 records made available by one Shri Mahendra Kumar Dongre, an ex-employee of the appellant firm. Reliance has also been placed on his statement in which he has alleged evasion of Central Excise duty by the said firm.
34. Shri Dongre handed over the records to the Central Excise department after leaving his job. These records were reported to be in his custody even after he was no longer concerned with the said firm. The records pertain to the period prior to 1985 while they were made available to the department in 1986. The statement was also recorded in 1986.
35. In his statement recorded on 19-8-1986, Shri Dongre had stated that no excise duty was paid on 2844000 hand-made biris of Deepak brand. He had also stated that no excise duty was paid on No. 2 biris, that out of 98404200 hand-made biris manufactured by the appellants, no excise duty was paid on 12292900 hand-made biris. The ex-employee had a grudge against the appellants and admittedly wanted to use his earlier position in the firm to implicate and harm his ex-employers.
36. Shri Dongre had actually worked with the appellants firm upto August 1984 as from 7-9-1984 dispute arose between him and the appellants. He left the service on 15-9-1984. Complaint to the Central Excise department was filed by him in June 1986 and his statement was recorded on 19-8-1986.
37. The 32 records made available to the department were reported to be with Shri Dongre although he was no more in the employment of the said firm. Some of the records were said to have been written by others, and not by Shri Dongre.
38. The records pertained to the year prior to 1985 although Shri Dongre had left employment in Sep. 1984, and the same were made available to the department in June 1986.
39. The conduct of Shri Dongre does not inspire any confidence, and we are not inclined to place reliance on his testimony alone to establish the case against the appellants.
40. In as far as the records said to have been written by other persons (and not by Shri Dongre himself), are concerned, it can be said that the evidence by Shri Dongre is only a hearsay evidence.
41. In the case B.N. fadeji v. Collector of Customs [1989 (44) E.L.T. 736 (Tribunal)] the CEGAT had observed that no conclusion could be based on hearsay evidence.
The relevant portion is reproduced below:-
"11...It is the basic fundamental of the law that the hearsay evidence can never be taken into consideration much less for basing any conclusion. The same at the best can provide a corroborative evidence if the person who made such a statement also testifies to the same..."
"12. Basing of any conclusion on such statements is, therefore, contrary to the established principles of law and cannot be sustained."
42. In this case, the persons who were said to have written the records were not examined at any stage. Their names and addresses are also not on record.
43. In his statement, dated 19-8-1986, Shri Dongre had given figures of evasion as per his knowledge. No basis had been indicated by him as to how he has arrived at those figures of evasion.
44. There is no corroboration of the testimony of Shri Dongre either from the conduct of the parties or the surrounding circumstances. In our considered view, the testimony of the complainant was not enough to establish the charge against the appellants, in this case.
45. No independent investigations had been made to substantiate the figures of production of biris as arrived at on the scrutiny of the records made available by Shri Dongre. The main raw material for production of biris is the tobacco. No investigations have been made with regard to the source of supply of such tobacco. There is nothing in the Order passed by the Additional Collector as from where the tobacco was procured and how the biris alleged to have been produced clandestinely were disposed of. There is no mention about the sale proceeds. There is no finding on these important points in the Order-in-Original.
46. No seizure of any biris had been effected. 18 records recovered by the department subsequent to the complaint by Shri Dongre were returned to the appellants as reportedly nothing incriminating was found in those records.
47. Some of the records handed over by Shri Dongre were sent to the Examiner, Government Examiner of Questioned Documents, Central Forensic Institute, Calcutta, who opined that all the records submitted for his examination were written by one and the same person.
48. This report of the examiner is vague and does not prove the case of the department. There is no identification of the appellant firm. In any case, the information of an handwriting expert cannot be considered as conclusive. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Sukhdeo Singh and Anr. [1992 AIR SCW 2486] the testimony of a handwriting expert is a weak testimony. The relevant extract from the judgment by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is reproduced below:-
"29...There is no absolute rule of law or even of prudence which has ripened into a rule of law that in no case can the Court base its findings solely on the opinion of a handwriting expert but the imperfect and frail nature of the science of identification of the author by comparison of his admitted handwriting with the disputed ones has placed a heavy responsibility on the Courts to exercise extra care and caution before acting on such opinion."
49. The appellant firm was working under physical control system and the onus of establishing the allegation of clandestine production and removal of biris is on the department. We find that the department has not been able to discharge this onus.
50. As viewed by the CEGAT in the case - Leather Chemicals and Industries Ltd., Calcutta v. Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta, 1984 (3) ETR153], "if the department alleges clandestine production and removal of goods without due accountal in the statutory records and without payment of duty, the onus of establishing the allegation.would lie heavily on the department, in comparison to the situation obtaining under what is known as the self Removal Procedure under which the assessee is, by and large, taken on trust and is expected to maintain statutory records, assess the goods to duty and clear them on gate passes subject to occasional physical checks by the Central Excise staff and scrutiny of assessment on the basis of monthly returns."
51. In the present case before us the assessee was working under physical control system. The records and documents recovered from them subsequent to the enquiries made on receipt of the complaint from Shri Dongre did not reveal anything incriminating against them. Except the statement by Shri Dongre and the records made available by him there is nothing to establish clandestine production and removal of biris on which the duty has been confirmed in the Order-in-Original passed by the Additional Collector, Central Excise, Indore. As we have noted above, Shri Dongre had a grudge against the appellant firm and wanted to implicate them for the dispute he had with them. In our considered view, in the circumstances of the case, it is not proper to rely upon the testimony of Shri Dongre, without corroboration.
52. Having regard to the foregoing discussions, we consider that the appeal by the appellants merit acceptance and consequently, we set aside the impugned Order with consequential relief to the appellants.
53. As we have accepted the appeal on merits of the case, we do not consider it necessary to discuss the other points raised by the appellants except the question of jurisdiction which we have already discussed above. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.