9911796707
TMI Blog1970 (3) TMI 56X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... carrying on business in tobacco and is a licensee of private bonded warehouses and duty paid godown at Haldwani, District Nainital. Appellant No. 2 is the proprietor of the firm. On September 28, 1956, Shri J.P. Bhatia, Deputy, Superintendent of Central Excise, Rampur Circle, visited the duty-paying and non-duty paying tobacco premises of the appellant in connection 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 non-duty paid premises. According to the appellants, nobody was present on their behalf at the time of the visit of the Deputy Superintendent. The keys of the godown were given by one Khuda Bux, who also was an independent tobacco licensee. According to the respondents one Sham Lal who is a lawyer by profession, was associated with the appellant's business and was present when Shri Bhatia visited the godown but declined to co-operate with the department. On inspection of both types of premises, the Deputy Superintendent found various substitutions and shortage of tobacco. 4. On October 2, 1956 the Superintendent of Central Excise, Rampur, issued a notice to the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dings were initiated against the appellants, on January 19, 1957 under Exhibit I, the Collector issued a notice 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 not be taken in the manner indicated in the notice regarding the quantity of substituted tobacco and the shortage referred to in the demand Ex. A. Exhibit I gives in very great detail full particulars regarding the quantity of tobacco under the two heads, viz., of substitution and deficiency. The appellants sent a reply, Exhibit J, dated February 2, 1957 to the show cause notice. 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 nor competent to represent them. The appellants pleaded that they had not committed any offence justifying the taking of any action against them. 8. The Collector, by order dated March 8, 1958—Exhibit Q—disposed of the appeal and came to the conclusion that tobacco of different variety wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 223-A, on the remaining losses not accounted for. 12. The appellants had taken up the matter before the Collector, Central Excise, in Appeal No. 23 of 1958. The Collector, by his order dated February 6, 1958—Exhibit N—set aside the order of the Assistant Collector and, without prejudice to the contentions of the parties, remanded the proceedings to the Assistant Collector with a direction to adjudicate the matter de novo. 13. The revision taken against this order before the Central Government proved of no avail, as will be ssen by the Government's order dated March 31, 1959—Exhibit P. 14. 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. The appellants challenged almost all the orders before the High Court, on various grounds. The High Court, after a fairly exhaustive consideration of the matter, has substantially confirmed the orders which were under attack. But, in respect of certain directions given by the Collector of Central Excise, in his order Exhibit Q, dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. 16. The further grievance placed before us by the learned Counsel on behalf of the appellant is that before the High Court various objections had been raised in the writ petition regarding the manner in which the inspection was done by the Deputy Superintendent and none of these matters had been considered by the High Court. To a direct question put by us, as to whether all the points referred to in para 33 of the the writ petition were really argued before the High Court, the Counsel quite fairly stated that he has no instructions to say that these points were as a matter of fact pressed before the High Court. 17. The Counsel further urged that no opportunity had been given to cross-examine the Deputy Superintendent of Central Excise nor was a copy of his report made available to the appellants. The inspection was done without the knowledge of the appellants and without notice to them ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
