ABDUL KARIM ABDUL MAJID Vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner obtained a rule, from the High Court, on an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, against the Collector of Central Excises, Patna, who is the sole opposite party, to show cause why a writ should not he issued, quashing his order dated 22nd March, 1955, passed under Section 35 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, being Act No. I of 1944, hereinafter referred to as "the Act", read with Rule 213 (1), of the Central Excise Rules, 1944), hereinafter referred to as "the Rules", framed by the Central Government, under Section 37 of the Act.

(2.) The opposite party has shown cause against the rule, through the Government pleader, and, also filed a counter-affidavit.

(3.) The petitioner is aggrieved, not against the entire order of the opposite party, but against only a portion of his order, as the petitioner's appeal, against the demand of duty under Rule 160 of the Rules, was partly allowed by him. The portion, complained of, is as follows :