9911796707
TMI Blog1964 (7) TMI 7X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The Calcutta Electric Supply Co. has disconnected and sealed my meter on 30-4-1962 (a.m.) on our request. So, we request you kindly to visit our factory and after necessary inspection please permit us to start our factory on hand driven in our licence premises. In this connection we are to state that if we like to switch over the factory to power driven again during this year, we will inform you at least 15 days before the commencement of the same." On July 21, 1962, the petitioners say, the factory premises of the petitioners was searched by a raiding party from the Central Excise Department and the books of account of the petitioners were seized. Thereafter, the respondent No. 2 - Assistant Collector, issued a notice, dated September 25, 1962 by registered post, addressed to the firm name of the petitioners. The material portion of the said notice reads as follows : "Whereas it appears that M/s. Howrah Proofing Co. of 113/1, Shri Arabindo Road, Salkia, Howrah, holding L4 licence No. 1 (CF)/59, have contravened the provisions of Rules 9, 52A & 53 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, inasmuch as they manufactured in their processing factory a quantity of 9,00,948.60 sq. metre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (Rs. 1,500/- in all) on M/s. Howrah Proofing Co. of 113/1, Shri Arabindo Road, Salkia, Howrah. M/s. Howrah Proofing Co. should also pay excise duty on the entire quantity of 9,00,948.60 sq. metres of processed cotton canvas, produced and clandestinely removed by them." Aggrieved by the order, the petitioners moved this Court, under Art. 226 of the Constitution, praying for a Writ of Certiorari for the quashing of the notice, dated September 29, 1962, and the order, dated January 28, 1963, and for a mandate upon the respondents restraining them from taking steps under the order dated January 28, 1963 and obtained this Rule, limited to the following ground : "The petitioners did not get an opportunity to formulate their objections against the said purported notice due to denial of access to the relevant books of account and papers seized and also the premature decision and assessment made by the Respondent No. 3 issuing notice of demand before the expiry of the period granted in the notice for showing cause, and the said purported order, dated 28th January, 1963, was made in violation of the principles of natural justice and/or without jurisdictio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authority, I might have upheld the argument of Mr. Chaudhury on the ground that the Deputy Superintendent had a fore-sworn mind and that the opportunity given to the petitioners to show cause was only a matter of form. But in this case, the Deputy Superintendent was not the adjudicating authority. The Notice to show cause was issued by an Assistant Collector of Central Excise, calling upon the petitioners to show cause before the Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta and Orissa, who was the adjudicating authority. It appears from the adjudication order, (1) that the petitioners asked for extension of time before the collector to show cause, which prayer was allowed, (2) that they submitted their written explanation to the notice on October 21, 1962, (3) that their request for personal hearing was granted by the Collector, (4) that a Counsel for the petitioners appeared before the Collector and made his submissions, and (5) that the Collector considered the objections of the petitioners and delivered a reasoned order of adjudication. Therefore, the charge of violation of principles of natural justice can hardly be levelled against the respondent Collector. 4.I have now to see if t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... May, 1963 at the office of the Superintendent, Central Excise, Centralised Prevention Unit at No. 7, Hare Street, Calcutta but item No. 2 in the seizure list being an account book was not produced for our inspection. This fact was pointed out to the officers of the respondents in whose presence inspection was being offered but they could not help us in the matter and we came back without having inspection of the said book which is a very important one as also other books of which inspection could not be completed in one day." What is stated in paragraph 7 of the affidavit in-reply relates to a time after the making of the adjudication order. Therefore there is nothing in the affidavit-in-reply which challenges the statement made in the affidavit in opposition that at no stage prior to the adjudication or during the course of the adjudication proceedings did the petitioners ask for production of the seized books and documents so as to enable them properly to explain the charge made against them. If the petitioners had made a demand for production of documents during the adjudication proceedings or at any time prior to that, and if the respondent No. 1 Collector, had refused such a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
