9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Alleged substitution of tobacco in a private bonded warehouse without payment of duty. 2. Denial of opportunity to examine the Chemical Examiner and departmental witnesses. 3. Violation of natural justice in quasi-judicial proceedings. 4. Imposition of penalty and confiscation of tobacco under Central Excise Rules. 5. Rejection of appeal and revision petition by higher authorities. 6. Failure to avail alternative remedy before filing the writ petition. Detailed Analysis: 1. The judgment revolves around the alleged substitution of tobacco in a private bonded warehouse without payment of duty. The petitioner placed unmanufactured tobacco in their warehouse, which was later suspected to have been replaced with adulterated tobacco. The Excise authorities issued a show cause notice for contravention of Central Excise Rules and confiscated the tobacco based on a Chemical Examiner's report indicating suspicion of substitution. 2. The petitioner was denied the opportunity to examine the Chemical Examiner and departmental witnesses. Despite claims of not being given a chance to examine the examiner, evidence showed that a date was fixed for examination, but the petitioner did not appear. The Superintendent disallowed the examination of departmental witnesses, citing the case being solely based on the Chemical Examiner's report, which was deemed a violation of natural justice in quasi-judicial proceedings. 3. The judgment highlights the violation of natural justice in the quasi-judicial process conducted by the Superintendent, Central Excise. The Superintendent's refusal to allow examination of witnesses and suggesting a procedure for clarification by the authority itself was deemed unacceptable. The petitioner's right to examine witnesses to establish facts was emphasized as essential in quasi-judicial determinations. 4. The Superintendent, Central Excise, imposed a penalty and ordered confiscation of the tobacco under Central Excise Rules for contravention of specific provisions. The penalty imposed, along with the demand for excise duty and additional charges, amounted to over Rs. 7,000. The petitioner's appeal and revision petition were rejected by higher authorities, leading to the filing of the writ petition challenging the orders based on the violation of natural justice. 5. Despite objections raised regarding the petitioner's failure to exhaust alternative remedies before filing the writ petition, the judgment rejected such contentions based on precedents. The court quashed the three impugned orders, citing the violation of natural justice, and left the parties to bear their own costs, thereby providing relief to the petitioner. This detailed analysis of the judgment showcases the issues of alleged substitution in a bonded warehouse, denial of examination opportunities, violation of natural justice, imposition of penalties under Central Excise Rules, rejection of appeals, and the decision to quash the impugned orders in favor of the petitioner.
|
