TMI Blog1979 (6) TMI 39X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pport thereof, and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. P. Shanmugham, Advocate for the Petitioner, the Court made the following order :- 2. This is a petition for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the respondents. The petitioner is a dealer in tobacco with an L-5 Licence and warehouse. On a special stock taking conducted by the Central Excise Department it was found that ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... held the remaining tobacco to the extent of 7,471.36 Kgs. of tobacco to be liable to duty. Accordingly by his order dated 19-2-1977, the Collector levied the duty, but in view of the past good record, did not levy any penalty. This order was confirmed by the Central Board of Excise. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the driage and deficiency in stock due to natural causes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has occurred and he must also satisfy that it was the entirety of the shortage which was normal to the satisfaction of the proper officer. When once the proper officer considered that the driage was not normal but abnormal and therefore could not be accepted and that the entirety of the shortage could not be permitted as a deduction for levy of excise duty, this court cannot sit in judgment over ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... may require more stronger proof than the others. But that cannot be a ground to conclude that any arbitrary power is vested on the authorities concerned. Rule 223A in the nature of things has to be in this form as, even if any standard is prescribed, the petitioner might show peculiar circumstances, which warranted higher percentage being permitted. It is in those circumstances it is said that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
