In the report, the officer had referred to the issue of a demand numberice, Exhibit A, and he asked for instructions from his higher authorities regarding the further disposal of the goods.
The revision taken against this order before the Central Government proved of numberavail, as will be seen by the Governments order dated March 31, 1959 Exhibit P. We have very exhaustively referred to the various proceedings initiated against the appellants as well as the nature of the orders passed and as they will clearly show, in our opinion that the appellants grievance which will be presently dealt with is unfounded.
Assistant Collector with a direction to adjudicate the matter de numbero.
According to the respondents one Sham Lal who is a lawyer by profession, was associated with the appellants business and was present when Shri Bhatia visited the godown but declined to companyoperate with the department.
A. Exhibit I gives in very great detail full particulars regarding the quantity of tobacco under the two heads, viz.,
They also filed an appeal, Exhibit G, dated December 20, 1956 to the Collector of Central Excise, Allahabad, against the demand Exhibit A, challenging the legality of the demand numberice.
The appellants filed an appeal before the Central Board of Revenue, Exhibit S, against the order of the Collector and the Board, by its order dated March 31, 1959, Exhibit T. companyfirmed the order of the Collector.
The appellants seat a reply, Exhibit J, dated February 2 1957 to the show cause numberice.
The Deputy Superintendent, on the basis of his inspection on September 28, 1956 submitted a report on October 12, 1956 setting out in detail the circumstances of his visit as well as the quantity of substituted tobacco and the shortage found in the appellants premises.
It was also stated that the stock taking waw on October 2, 1956 and November 9.
23 of 1958.
This numberice also gave full particulars as to how these figures had been arrived at.
2 is the proprietor of the firm.
A further revision taken before the Central Government, Exhibit U, dated May 15, 1959 by the appellants, was rejected on October 17, 1959 under Exhibit V. Another type of proceedings was initiated against the appellants by the Superintendent, Central Excise, issuing a numberice dated March 7, 1957 Exhibit K, under Rule 223 A, alleging that the appellants had failed to account for the companysignments mentioned therein at the time of the annual stock taking in 1956.
There is numbercontroversy that the appellants did number go in revision to the Government of India by filing any revision, at any rate, so far as the demand numberice Exhibit A was companycerned.
After companysidering the explanation submitted by the appellants that the tobacco was wet dried in storage, the Assistant Collector, by order dated June 10, 1957 Exhibit M held that the explanation cannot be accepted and that the losses were excessive, However, he companydoned the losses to a certain percentage in sic of about five lots and imposed a penalty of Rs.
But, when one reads through the various orders passed by the authorities, as well as the averments made in the writ petition and in the, companynter affidavit of the respondents, the following facts emerge.
The Collector had also made the appellants pay the incidental charges for cartage, loading, unloading and also rent for the premises hired for storage of the seized goods.
The appellants, under Exhibit R 5, dated February 2, 1957 filed a further appeal before the Collector of Central Excise, who, by his order dated April 14, 1958 Exhibit R disposed of the appeal by stating that as the demand made by the Superintendent of Central Excise had been revised under the Collectors order dated March 8, 1958 Exhibit Q it was open to the appellants to move the Government of India by revision if they were aggrieved by the order of March 8, 1958.
The appellants had taken up the matter before the Collector, Central Excise, in Appeal No.
On October 2, 1956 the Superintendent of Central Excise, Rampur, issued a numberice to the appellants under Rule 160 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 hereinafter referred to as the rules , demanding the payment of a sum of Rs.
The Collector, by his order dated February 6, 1958 Exhibit N set aside the order of the Assistant Collector and without prejudice to the companytentions of the parties, remanded the proceedings to the.
1, is a firm carrying on business in tobacco and is a licensee of private bonded warehouses and duty paid godown at Haldwani, District Nainital.
The appellants pleaded that they had number companymitted any offence justifying the taking of any action against them.
As pointed out by the High Court, the writ petition was very prolix and had been drafted in a very companyfusing manner and the objections raised by the respondents followed the, same pattern.
The appellant No.
The appellants challenged in their writ petition, as many as eight orders passed on different dates by the various respondents herein, under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 hereinafter called the Act .
A further numberice, Exhibit L, dated April 22/23, 1957 was issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise regarding the companytravention of Rule 223 A, in respect of certain other companysignments which the appellants were alleged to have failed to account at the time of annual stack taking.
The numberice, Exhibit A, gave particulars of the demand to the effect that duty was demanded on 226 maunds, 12 seers and 11 chataks of substituted tobacco and 16 maunds, 7 seers and 8 chataks of tobacco that was short.
This order, Exhibit Q, it must be mentioned, refers in great detail to the various objections raised by the appellants in their reply dated February 2, 1957 as well as the points raised by the companynsel for the appellants at the time of the hearing on June 3, 1957 and it was, after a companysideration of all these objections and the materials on record that the Collector came to the companyclusions referred to above.
On this, two sets of proceedings were initiated against the appellants, on January 19, 1957 under Exhibit I, the Collector issued a numberice to the appellants under Rules 32, 40,151 c and d , 160 and 226 calling upon them to show cause as to why action should number be taken in the manner indicated in the numberice regarding the quantity of substituted tobacco and the shortage referred to in the demand Ex.
of substitution and deficiency.
The appellants made a representation, Exhibit F, to the Collector, alleging that the inspection had been done by the Deputy Superintendent during their absence and a numberice under Rule 160 had been issued without any legal authority.
8,713 8 0.
It will, also be numbered that the demand, Exhibit A, as well as the order of the Assistant Collector, Exhibit H, were modified to a certain extent.
On September 28, 1956, Shri J.P. Bhatia, Deputy Superintendent of Central Excise, Rampur Circle, visited the duty paying and number duty paying tobacco premises of the appellant in companynection with the inspection of the premises regarding their suitability or otherwise in respect of a proposal that had been made by the firm for an addition to their number duty paid premises.
On inspection of both types of premises, the Deputy Superintendent found various substitutions and shortage of tobacco.
By order dated January 23, 1957 Exhibit H the Assistant Collector, after holding that the demand made by the Superintendent of Central Excise was justified, advised the appellants to deposit the amount demanded and to lodge an appeal with the Collector of Central Excise, Allahabad.
The inspection was done with out the knowledge of the appellants and without numberice to them and Khuda Bux was number authorised to represent them at the time the inspection was company ducted by the Deputy Superintendent.
According to the appellants, numberody was present on their behalf at the time of the visit of the Deputy Superintendent.
Appellant No.
The appellants challenged almost all the orders before the High Court, on various grounds.
The Collector, by order dated March 8, 1958 Exhibit Q disposed of the appeal and came to the companyclusion that tobacco of different variety was found in the warehouse than that entered in the registers and there had been substitution and deficiency but he reduced the quantity mentioned in the demand numberice Exhibit A and, accordingly, revised the duty and penalty.
407/ under Rule sic , on the remaining losses number accounted for.
The keys of the godown were given by one Khuda Bux, who also was an independent tobacco licensee.
30/D of 1960, filed by the appellants under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
A. Vaidialingam, J. This appeal, on certificate, is directed against the Order, dated April 8, 1964 of the Punjab High, Court in Civil Writ Application No.
They had referred therein to the practice followed by them and also made a grievance that the inspection had been done by the Deputy Superintendent without their knowledge and that one Khuda Bux who gave the key to the premises and who was stated to have been present was neither their agent number companypetent to represent them.
