After giving a personal hearing to the respondent on September 18, 1973 the appellant came to the companyclusion that the respondent had evaded payment of duty on 1272 bags weighing 48,304 Kgs, of VFC Farmash tobacco and issued a demand under Rule 160 in the sum of Rs.1,66,165.76 under adjudication order No.
Since a period of more than six months had indisputably expired from the dates on which the excess tobacco was transported under the six transport permits in question, the action was clearly time barred.
In addition thereto the appellant imposed a penalty of Rs.
100 for companytravention of Rules 151 and 32 1 of the Rules.
2516 of 1974 decided on April 1, 1976.
From the Judgement and Decree dated 16.11.1977 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Appeal No.
358 of 1976, but in vain.
In this view of the matter the writ petition was allowed and the demand made under the impugned adjudication order both in respect of duty and penalty was quashed.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The present appellant questioned the companyrectness of this view in appeal, Writ Appeal No.
Thereupon the respondent filed a writ petition No.2600 of 1974 under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the aforesaid order of the appellant.
Altaf Ahmed, Additional Solicitor General, P. Parmeshwaran and Dilip tandon for the Appellant.
The respondent sent a detailed reply to the said show cause numberice on November 4, 1972.
S. Nambiar and B. Parthasarthy for the Respondent.
2341 of 1978.
The facts leading to this appeal are as follows The respondent M s. Ramdev Tobacco Company, a sole proprietory companycern, was at all material times a dealer in tobacco having a licenced warehouse at Guntur.
358 of 1976.
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by AHMADI, J. This appeal, on certificate, is directed against the decision of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh which was quashed the imposition of duty and levy of penalty on the ground that the show cause numberice was issued after the expiry of the period of six months from the accrual of the cause of action.
173/74 dated April 9, 1974.
The dealer was liable to pay duty on the tobacco received at his warehouse and transported to another dealer.
