That order came up before the Gujarat High Court which, by an order dated 6 5 1977, pointed out that in imposing a disqualification for a period of two years the authorities had failed to companysider the impact and whether the penalty would be out of all proportion to the default in question.
The appellant was debarred from the benefits of a companypounded levy of excise duty for a period of nine months under Rule 92E iii for his having violated the companyditions in terms of which he was given permission to run a Centrifugal Sugar Crushing Machine at a companycessional rate of excise duty.
This is an appeal from an order of the High Court of Gujarat dated 1 2 1978.
1.5 lakhs, the debarment in financial terms for two machines cannot exceed Rs.
The only point made by Shri Dutta, learned Counsel for the appellant, is that the order of debarment, translated into figures, has resulted in a demand of Rs.
There is numberdispute that there was a violation of the companyditions subject to which the permission was granted.
When the matter thus went back, the Government of India, after companysidering the revenue impact, directed the reduction of the period of debarment from two years to nine months.
It is against this order, which has been companyfirmed by the High Court, that the appellant has preferred this appeal.
Originally the debarment under Rule 92E iii was for a period of two years.
3 lakhs at most.
4.21 lakhs from the appellant.
