The petitioner showed cause, the Collector heard the petitioner who had also filed written arguments.
2,000 and a revision to the Central Board of Revenue was also dismissed for the same reason.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KAPUR J. The petitioner was a wholesale and retail dealer in tobacco at Banaras and also owned a private bonded warehouse for tobacco and held licences for the same.
150 and the duty leviable thereon in lieu of companyfiscation.
Finding the charges against the petitioner proved, the Collector ordered companyfiscation of the bags of kandi, imposed a fine of Rs.
December 2.
On July 29, 1954, the Collector called upon the petitioner to produce another surety as the previous surety Mohammad Satar was number prepared to act as such.
151 C and 226 of the Central Excise Rules.
of tobaco were attached by the Excise Department and sold by auction for Rs.
15, 263 8 0 due from him the petitioner as Excise duty, 373 Mds.
The petitioner took an appeal against this order to the Central Board of Revenue which was dissmissed.
9 of 1957.
The petitioner also filed a petition under Art.
As there was a sum of Rs.
140 to 148, 150, 171 to 181, 215 and 226 of the Central Excise Rules made under the Act be declared ultra vires and to issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ to quash the orders passed by the Collector as companyfirmed on appeal and revision by the Central Board of Revenue and the Central Government respectively.
This is one of the orders which is challenged by the petitioner.
He further imposed a penalty of Rs.
Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for enforcement of fundamental rights.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Petition No.
The petitioners warehouse was checked by Inspector Das who on finding some irregularity sealed the warehouse on December 8, 1953, and subsequently took possession of all the registers and stock cards.
10,000 respectively.
The appeal taken to the Central Board of Revenue was dismissed as the petitioner refused to deposit the penalty of Rs.
Against those orders the petitioner made certain representations to the Collector and some companyrespondence passed.
In this petition he challenges the legality of certain orders passed by the Collector of Excise, Allahabad, which on appeal were companyfirmed and revisions against those orders were dismissed by the Central Government.
K. Daphtary, Solicitar General of India R. H. Dhebar and T. M. Sen, for the respondents.
The petitioner demurred to this and as the outstanding amount of excise duty was number paid the Deputy Collector ordered on February 13, 1956, that till the deposit was made the petitioners licence shall remain inoperative.
7,000 and Rs.
On June 15, 1954, the Collector, Central Excise, issued a numberice to the petitioner to show cause why a penalty should number be imposed on him for the companytravention of Rules 151 C and 226 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and why the bags of kandi should number be companyfiscatted.
The petitioner states that he thereupon furnished two bonds in Form B 4 and B 5 for Rs.
which were found in the petitioners warehouse, were removed from the warehouse by the Inspector and stored in some other place.
On December22,1953, 11 1/2 bags of kandi i.e. stems of tobacco .
D. Sharma, for the petitioner.
2,000 under rr.
