TMI Blog1987 (10) TMI 59X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rics, the place being the factory premises. On March 11, 1963, Officers of the Central Excise Department seized certain goods of the Mills which were then lying in the premises of M/s. Jalan Dyeing Bleaching Mills, Bombay, which is the sister concern of the appellants. The Excise Officers attached several documents, books of accounts, vouchers and papers and the Mills filed Writ Petition No. 127 of 1963 in this Court to challenge the seizure of the goods. The Writ Petition was dismissed and so also the appeal preferred to the Supreme Court. 3. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise raided the premises of M/s. Jalan Dyeing Bleaching Mills and M/s. Lokenath Tolaram, a partnership concern which is respondent No. 6 in this appeal and several other parties and recovered large number of documents and thereupon issued a detention order. It is required at this juncture to state that respondent No. 5 to the original petition, i.e. Adarsh Vidyut Kargha Sahakari Samiti Limited, is a registered Co-operative Society constituted under the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. In the documents seized by the Excise authorities, it was noticed that Prakash Cotton Mills ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cause. The petition was decided in favour of the Mills and Civil Appeal No. 917(N) of 1971 preferred by the Excise authorities before the Supreme Court was withdrawn in the year 1975. The Excise authorities stated before the Supreme Court that in view of the judgment of the High Court that principles of natural justice were not observed, the Excise authorities would serve fresh show cause notices on the petitioners and would hold fresh proceedings. 4. It is required to be stated that the show cause notices which were struck down by the High Court for want of proper opportunity to show cause were also issued against the Co-operative Society — respondent No. 5 to the original petition and the Society had filed Writ Petition No. 235 of 1964 in this Court challenging the issuance of show cause notices. That petition was withdrawn by the Society after securing leave from the Court to file a suit to challenge the show cause notices and, accordingly, the Society instituted Suit No. 210 of 1965 on the Original Side of this Court and to that suit, Prakash Cotton Mills was joined as defendant No. 4. In that suit, the issuance of two show cause notices is a subject matter, but these show ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. The first submission urged by the learned Counsel is that the two show cause notices suffer from vagueness and, therefore, should be struck down in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is not necessary to set out extensively the contents of the two show cause notices, but the perusal of the same leaves no manner of doubt that the complaint that the notices suffer from the vagueness is without any merit. The learned Counsel urged that the show cause notices did not state the period during which the fabric was manufactured and removed from the place of manufacture and that is a serious deficiency in the show cause notices. The submission is devoid of any merit because the annexures to the show cause notices clearly set out that the period in respect of first show cause notice was from March 1, 1961 to August 1, 1963 and in respect of the second show cause notice, from March 1962 to February 1963. The annexures to the show cause notices not only set out the period during which the excisable fabric was manufactured but also the category, the width, square metres, basic duty, additional duty and handloom cess payable thereon. When attention of M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the Collector had not specified those places as required under Rule 9(1) and, therefore, the question of contravention of Rule 9(1) for adopting proceedings under Rule 9(2) does not arise. We must express our surprise at the courage shown in advancing this submission. The argument of the learned Counsel is that if any excisable goods are manufactured at the place which is not specified by the Collector, then such goods are not liable to payment of Excise duty and consequently can be removed without any obligation to pay excise duty. If such argument is accepted, then it would lead to atrocious results because it is convenient for the manufacturer to manufacture excisable goods without any permission from the Collector and then bluntly claim that excise duty is not payable. Apart from the absurdity of such contention, the complaint made by the Excise authority is that the Co-operative Society is nothing but a creation of Prakash Cotton Mills for the purpose of avoiding payment of duty and the Society is under the exclusive and absolute control of Prakash Cotton Mills. The Excise authorities claim that Prakash Cotton Mills have been permitted by the Collector to manufacture goods i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not examine the judgments of the Madras High Court as those judgments are no good law after insertion of sub-section (2)(ib) in Section 37 of the Act. 9. The final submission of Mr. Parsurampuria is that the show cause notices are issued by the Excise authorities after considerable delay and, therefore, on account of laches of over 13 years, the notices should not be proceeded with. It is impossible to accede to this submission. As mentioned hereinabove, the Excise authorities seized the documents and realised the evasion of the duty in the year 1964 and within a year thereof show cause notices as well as demand notices were issued. Those show cause notices were struck down and the appeal preferred by the Excise authorities was withdrawn in the year 1975. Immediately thereafter fresh show cause notices which are challenged in this petition were issued. It is, therefore, difficult to accede to the submission of Mr. Parsurampuria that the show cause notices are bad on account of delay of 13 years. It is convenient for the appellants to ignore what transpired in the last 13 years by claiming that the impugned show cause notices are issued for the first time in the year 1975. The im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
