1968 (5) TMI 15 - SC - Central Excise

Adjudication, appeal and revision - Assessing and appellate authorities exercise quasi-judicial power - Writ jurisdiction

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of "M.G. Poster paper" under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
2. Validity of the directions issued by the Central Board of Revenue.
3. Quasi-judicial nature of the powers exercised by the Collector and the Central Government.
4. Compliance with principles of natural justice.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of "M.G. Poster paper":
The central issue was whether "M.G. Poster paper" manufactured by the appellant company should be classified as "printing and writing paper" under Item 17(3) or as "packing and wrapping paper" under Item 17(4) of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Initially, the excise authorities treated "M.G. Poster paper" as "printing and writing paper" and levied duty accordingly. However, they later reclassified it as "packing and wrapping paper," resulting in a higher duty rate. The appellant contested this reclassification, asserting that "M.G. Poster paper" was considered "printing and writing paper" by the Indian Tariff Board and in government contracts.

2. Validity of the Directions Issued by the Central Board of Revenue:
The Collector and the Central Government based their decisions on a direction from the Central Board of Revenue, which classified all types of poster paper as "packing and wrapping paper." The Supreme Court held that such directions could not control the decision of a quasi-judicial authority. The Court emphasized that no authority, however high, could control the decision of a judicial or quasi-judicial authority, as this would undermine the essence of the judicial system.

3. Quasi-judicial Nature of the Powers Exercised by the Collector and the Central Government:
The Supreme Court affirmed that the powers exercised by the Collector under Section 35 and the Central Government under Section 36 of the Act were quasi-judicial. Consequently, these authorities were required to act independently and impartially, without being influenced by directions from the Board. The Court cited previous judgments to reinforce the principle that quasi-judicial functions must be free from administrative interference.

4. Compliance with Principles of Natural Justice:
The Court noted that the appellant was not provided with a copy of any chemical examination report of "M.G. Poster paper," nor was it given an opportunity to contest the facts mentioned in such a report. It was later conceded that no chemical examination had been conducted. The incorrect statement by the Collector regarding the chemical examination and the reliance on the Board's direction without independent assessment contravened the principles of natural justice. The Court held that the proceedings were vitiated due to these procedural irregularities.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the orders of the Central Government and the Collector. The matter was remitted to the Collector for a fresh decision on whether "M.G. Poster paper" should be assessed as "printing and writing paper" or as "packing and wrapping paper." The respondents were ordered to pay the costs of the appellant. The judgment underscored the importance of maintaining the independence of quasi-judicial authorities and adhering to principles of natural justice.