1977 (10) TMI 39 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Alleged substitution of tobacco stock in a private bonded warehouse.
2. Validity of the opinion given by a trade panel regarding the variety of tobacco found in the warehouse.
3. Applicability of Rule 23A of the Central Excise Rules for allowance of dryage.
4. Legality of the authorities' actions in confiscating the stock and levying penalties.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a licensed tobacco dealer, faced allegations of substituting tobacco stock in his private bonded warehouse. Discrepancies in the weight of the stock led to suspicions of unauthorized removal and substitution. The authorities, based on a trade panel's opinion, concluded that the stock found differed from the original, leading to penalties and confiscation of the substituted stock.

2. The petitioner contested the trade panel's opinion, arguing that seeking advice from a third-party panel was illegal for a quasi-judicial authority like the third respondent. However, the court found no illegality in the process as the petitioner was aware of the panel's constitution, participated in the proceedings, and had the opportunity to challenge the opinion. The court upheld the reliance on the trade panel's opinion.

3. The petitioner invoked Rule 23A of the Central Excise Rules, seeking allowance for dryage. The court noted that once clandestine removal and substitution of the original stock were established, the question of dryage allowance became irrelevant. The authorities were justified in levying excise duty on the substituted stock and confiscating it under Rule 161 of the Central Excise Rules.

4. Ultimately, the court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the authorities' findings of substitution and justifying the penalties imposed. The petitioner's objections regarding the trade panel's opinion and the confiscation of stock were rejected, leading to the dismissal of the petition without costs.