TMI Blog1970 (3) TMI 56X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. - 1623 of 1966 - - - Dated:- 11-3-1970 - J.M. Shelat and C.A. Vaidialingam, JJ. [Judgment per : Vaidialingam, J.]. - 1. This appeal, on certificate, is directed against the judgment, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lars as to how these figures had been arrived at. The notice itself was issued without prejudice to any other action that may be taken under the Act. 5. 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 notice under Rule 160 had been issued without any legal authority. 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 notice. 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 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 Collector's order dated March, 1958— Exhibit Q—i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 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 Counsel for the appellants at the time of the hearing on June 3, 1957 and it was, after a consideration of all these objections and the materials on record that the Collector came to the conclusions referred to above. It will also be noted that the demand, Exhibit A, as well as the order of the Assistant Collector, Exhibit H, were modified to a certain extent. 9. 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, confirmed the order of the Collector. 10. 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. 11. Another type of proceedings was initiated against the appellants by the Superintendent, Central Excise, issuing a notice dated March 7, 1957 —Exhibit K, under Rule 223-A, alleging that the appellants had failed to account for the consignments mentioned t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rfere with the other directions contained in Exhibit Q, as well as the various .other orders. 15. Mr. Daniel Latifi, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, found considerable difficulty in satisfying us that any illegality or irregularity had been committed by the various authorities when the orders in question were passed. Mr. Latifi stressed that the orders of the Central Board of Revenue—Exhibit T—and the Central Government Exhibit V—are not speaking orders, especially as the Board and the Central Government were dealing with the liabilities of parties in hearing an appeal and revision under the Act and there is no indication that in either of these orders the authorities concerned had really applied their minds to the points arising for decision. We are not impressed with this contention of the learned Counsel. It must be remembered that the demand notice—Exhibit A—gives full particulars regarding the substitution and shortage of tobacco. The Collector had issued the notice—Exhibit I—giving full particulars of these matters and the appellants had also sent a fairly exhaustive reply to the same. Finally the order, Exhibit Q—Itself is very exhaustive and sets out meticul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t 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. 18. A further grievance was made by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the order—Exhibit N—dated February 6, 1958, passed by the Collector of Central Excise, was illegal and contrary to the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 35 of the Act. According to the learned Counsel, the Assistant Collector, by his order Exhibit M, had condoned the losses by a certain percentage in respect of five lots whereas the order of remand for a de novo adjudication passed by the Collector under Exhibit N will have the result of depriving the appellants of the favourable directions obtained by them under Exhibit N and their liability would be enhanced. That is, according to the appellants, the order of remand, Exhibit N, passed by the Collector, wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
