1970 (10) TMI 68 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to adjudication order imposing fine for contravention of Central Excise Rules - Denial of reasonable opportunity to petitioner - Allegations of malafide against departmental officers - Confiscation of tobacco not questioned - Imposition of penalty under Central Excise Rules challenged.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed an application under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking to quash an adjudication order passed by the Central Excise Superintendent, imposing a fine for contravention of Central Excise Rules. The petitioner alleged prejudice by local Central Excise Officers and lack of a reasonable opportunity to defend against the charges. The petitioner contended that the discrepancy in tobacco variety was not his fault, attributing it to consignors and the failure of the officer to verify the packages properly. The departmental authorities denied malafide allegations and asserted the petitioner's liability for the rule contravention. The petitioner argued for the lack of evidence showing his involvement in the discrepancy and emphasized the denial of a fair opportunity to present his case. The Government Pleader opposed the petitioner's claim but conceded that the petitioner should have been allowed to cross-examine witnesses and access the report used by authorities.

The Court considered the denial of a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner before passing the impugned order as a crucial issue. The Court decided to quash the order based on this ground without delving into the merits of the case. The Court did not address the confiscation of tobacco, as it was not challenged by the petitioner. The imposition of a penalty on the petitioner under the Central Excise Rules was set aside, citing improper reception of tobacco as the reason. The Court clarified that the quashing of the order did not prevent the department from initiating fresh proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with the law, provided a reasonable opportunity was given to the petitioner. The writ petition was allowed, and no costs were awarded in the case.