Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + SC Central Excise - 1970 (3) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1970 (3) TMI 56 - SC - Central ExciseWhether the inspection had been done by the Deputy Superintendent during their absence and a notice under Rule 160 had been issued without any legal authority? Held that:- As already mentioned, it is not as if the Collector merely confirmed the demand under Exhibit A in toto. On the other hand he modified it in favour of the appellant to some extent. It is such an exhaustive order passed by the Collector—Exhibit Q—that was the subject of consideration in the first instance, by the Central Board of Revenue, in Exhibit T, and later, by the Central Government, in Exhibit V. Under these circumstances, we are not inclined to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the orders—Exhibits T and V—require to be interfered with. The appellant had made no grievance before the Collector of Central Excise that they should be allowed to examine witnesses nor did they urge that a copy of the report of the Deputy Superintendent had not been made available to them. They did not make any request for cross-examining the Deputy Superintendent of Central Excise. In view of all these circumstances, in our opinion the High Court was justified in holding that the appellants had a proper opportunity of contesting the demand made by the department and the there had been no failure of natural justice in the proceedings conducted by the respondents. What the Collector has done in this case is to give the appellants an opportunity of satisfying, if they can, the authority concerned, that there was no justification for the issue of the two notices, Exhibits K and L under R. 223-A. The order does nothing more than this. If the appellants are able to satisfy the authority properly, the result may even be that no action will be taken under Rule 223-A. No scope for any conflict between the orders of the Collector, Exhibit Q dated March 3, 1958 and Exhibit N, dated February 6, 1958 because the two orders relate to different types of proceedings initiated against the appellants. Appeal dismissed.
|