TMI Blog1967 (4) TMI 214X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to the petitioner on 25th January, 1961 requiring him to show cause why the initial demand of an amount of ₹ 3263.98 nP. Originally made under rule 160 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 be nto confirmed. The petitioner by letter dated 9th February, 1961, requested the Assistant Collector, Central Excise Division, Ambala, to make certain records available to him for inspection to enable him to file reply to the show cause ntoice. One of the items, the inspection whereof was sought, related to an application of the petitioner for destruction of the lto originally warehoused. The petitioner by, the same letter also asked the Assistant Collector to inform him about the basis and material on which the Department rely and which establis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... struction is supported by the remarks of the Inspector (Mr. Kakkar) dated 4-12-1958, on the relevant register. The sample collected and the said application must be on your record. Kindly make sure that the application is nto misplaced in your office and let me know. 4. The petitioner also requested the superintendent , Central Excise, to supply him with one set of samples drawn in the year 1958. The said letter was replied to on 12th May, 1961, and the Superintendent, central Excise, required the petitioner to give him the number and date of his application for destruction. While referring to the petitioner's demand for one set of samples previously drawn the Superintendent wrtoe- As regards para 4 of your letter I do nto un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he petitioner penalty of ₹ 100/- and also ordered confiscation of 79 maunds 20 seers of tobacco under the said rule. He, however, gave the petitioner an option to get the goods released on payment of a fine of ₹ 75/- in lieu of confiscation in addition to the basic and additional excise duty at the appropriate rate. This duty comes to ₹ 3263.98 nP. The petitioner filed an appeal which was rejected by the Collector of Central Excise, Delhi, by his order dated 17th April, 1962, on the ground that the petitioner had failed to deposit the Government was also rejected on 26th December, 1962, by a summary order. Aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. (3) One of the objections taken by Mr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion for destruction the authorities concerned proceeded to decide the matter in complete disregard of that application. If that application had been taken ntoe of, the authorities may have been convinced that the goods originally warehoused were nto marketable so that there was no purpose behind substitution by the petitioner. It is nto disputed by Mr. Shankar that an application for destruction was made as alleged by the petitioner. (3) In paragraph 3 of the letter dated 28th March, 1961, it had been specifically stated by the petitioner that the proof of the application for destruction was supported by the remarks of the Inspector dated 4th December, 1958, on the relevant register and the sample collected and said application must ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ual analysis and various toher matters having important bearing on the case. 9. One of the fundamental rules of natural justice is that the party affected should have full and true disclosure of the facts sought to be used against him. Such disclosure ;is essential for wise and just application of the authority of administrative agencies. The right of hearing is a right, no more and no less, to a ;hearing which is adequate to safeguard the right for which such prtoection is afforded. It must be a hearing in substance and nto form. If such a hearing has been denied, the administrative action is void. No doubt the administrative agencies in holding hearings in the exercise of quasi-judicial functions are nto held to strict conformity with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
