TMI Blog1975 (10) TMI 28X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rovisions of Rules 32 and 40 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and she was further directed to pay demand duty on 101 kg. of Biri-patti tobacco, alleged to have been transported by the licences without the cover of valid transport document and the same order being upheld in the appellate as well as revisional order. The facts, in brief, are as under :- 2. Petitioner purchased Biri-patti tobacco from a trader at Durg by name Bhai Laxmandas holding Licence No. 2251. Under the first sale-note at Serial No. 160 at Annexure I, net tobacco purchased was 85 kg. The sale-note executed by Bhai Laxmandas in favour of the petitioner showed that he had received that tobacco from Tirods region and he mentioned A.R. `Application for removal' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for which the petitioner was issued a show cause notice. 4. On 20-10-1967 Inspector of Central Excise, Durg Range checked the accounts maintained by the petitioner in form EB. 3 (Entry Book) and noticed the over-writing. It was also seen that he told the petitioner after examining the sale-note that the petitioner committed a breach of Rule 32 of the Central Excise Rules inasmuch as tobacco was transported without valid permit. Thereafter a show cause notice dated 20-12-1967 was served on the petitioner. Under this show cause notice the petitioner was asked to explain why there was over-writing and the name of the consigner came to be changed by the petitioner in sale-note dated 29-11-1966. It was also stated that on verification ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7-1965 mentioned in the sale-note was for Khutan-Patti. He further held that T.P. 1 No. 544706 dated 26-7-1966 was issued therefor. According to him, the Transport Permit was not for Biri-patti as stated by licencee but it was for different tobacco and, therefore, there was a contravention of Rule 32. As regards the over-writing he did not consider it a very serious offence and issued a warning as it was the first case but as there was contravention of Rule 32 he imposed a penalty of Rs. 50/- and asked the petitioner to pay the duty on 191 kg. of tobacco. 7. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed the appeal which was dismissed and thereafter a revision petition was filed to the Joint Secretary, Government of India, Ministry ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for affixing his initials or stamp on each sale-note before the books are brought into use. The.duplicate shall be retained by the seller and the original given to the buyer as substitute transport permit. (b) Each sale-note shall contain at least the following particulars - (i) Date of issue; (ii) Name, address and licence numbers of (1) seller and (2) consignees; (iii) Number and date of- (1) the transport permit of sale-note under which the seller received the tobacco and in the latter case, the transport permit number recorded in such sale-note, and (2) the certificate of payment in Form D.D. 1 or the application in Form A.R. 2 under which duty was paid; (iv) Number and description or package; (v) Marks and numbers; ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Advocate for the respondents was unable to explain as to how they have a bearing to the present case. It is seen from the order and it was admitted before us that Bhai Laxmandas was not examined nor the duplicate copies maintained by Bhai Laxmandas were produced in the enquiry conducted against the petitioner. The main ground, in which the order is based and on the basis of which it is stated that the petitioner has contravened the provisions of Rule 32, is that the description of the tobacco does not tally with the description of the tobacco mentioned in the sale-note dated 29-11-1966 executed by the petitioner in favour of Ganpat. It is seen from the order of the Superintendent that he has relied upon certain documents for holding that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 26-7-1966 was for Khutan-Patti tobacco and not for Biri-patti, then Bhai Laxmandas along with the petitioner ought to have been charge-sheeted and a full enquiry should have been made as to who was responsible and whether, in fact, Bhai Laxmandas had paid duty on that tobacco or not. We have already stated that neither the documents were produced nor anybody was examined but statements are made that the office of the Superintendent. verified from the documents on the record. Even the numbers of the application of removal form and transport permit mentioned in the order of the Superintendent do not tally with the number of those numbers mentioned in the show cause notice. Under such circumstances we find hat there is no proper enquiry ii., t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
