9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1981 (8) TMI 229 - HC - Central Excise
Issues:
- Seizure of goods for suspected excise duty evasion - Confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty - Allegation of violation of principles of natural justice - Adequacy of opportunity for cross-examination - Compliance with procedural requirements by revisional authority - Justification of orders based on evidence and lack of defense Analysis: The case involves a Company engaged in manufacturing wire ropes, facing allegations of excise duty evasion leading to the seizure of goods. The Central Excise Officers seized 16 bundles of wire ropes valued at Rs. 12,000 from a tempo in 1974 suspecting removal without duty payment. The petitioners claimed the goods were sent to a customer but returned, and they were in the process of moving them to their godown. The Deputy Collector of Central Excise confiscated the goods and imposed a penalty, which was upheld in subsequent appeals and revisions. The petitioners contended that they were deprived of the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, but the court found no evidence of this claim in the appeal or previous proceedings. Another argument was that the Deputy Collector failed to inform the date of the next hearing, but since this was not raised before the Appellate Collector, it was deemed as an afterthought. The revisional authority's alleged failure to provide a proper hearing opportunity was dismissed as the petitioners' reply did not reach the authority in time. Regarding the defense raised by the petitioners, they failed to substantiate their claims with appropriate records or evidence. The court noted that the petitioners could not prove that the seized goods were either removed before the duty imposition date or that duty had been paid post-removal. As a result, the authorities were justified in relying on the statements of the tempo driver and owner. The court concluded that without substantial evidence supporting the petitioners' contentions, the impugned orders were deemed valid, and the petition was dismissed with costs.
|
