1977 (5) TMI 20 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Failure to serve affidavit-in-opposition in time.
2. Challenge to orders issued by the Central Excise Department.
3. Search and seizure of books and records by Deputy-Superintendent of Excise.
4. Issuance of notice to show cause for penalty and recovery of Central Excise duty.
5. Rejection of petitioner's contentions regarding the irregularity of the notice and the initiation of proceedings.
6. Arguments on limitation and violation of natural justice.
7. Dismissal of the Rule.

Analysis:
1. The judgment addressed the issue of failure to serve the affidavit-in-opposition in time. Mr. Banerjee filed the affidavit without obtaining leave and failed to serve it on the other party promptly. The court found Mr. Banerjee's submissions lacking substance as the affidavit was not served in due time, leading to the decision not to allow its use in the proceeding.

2. The petitioner firm challenged the orders issued by the Central Excise Department. The firm, engaged in manufacturing radios and wireless receiving sets, contested the validity of the orders in Annexures A, B, C, and D. The court detailed the events related to the search and seizure of books and records by the Deputy-Superintendent of Excise in 1966.

3. Following the search and seizure, a notice was issued to the firm to show cause for penalty and recovery of Central Excise duty. The firm responded, arguing that the notice was irregular and time-barred. The Assistant Collector rejected the defense, leading to subsequent appeals and revisions, which also ruled against the firm.

4. The judgment delved into the arguments presented on limitation and violation of natural justice. The court analyzed the provisions of Section 110(2) of the Customs Act and Section 40(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, dismissing the contentions raised by Mr. Chakraborty regarding limitation and violation of natural justice.

5. Ultimately, the court dismissed the Rule after considering the arguments presented. It was concluded that there was no merit in the contentions regarding limitation and violation of natural justice. The Rule was discharged, and no costs were awarded. The judgment highlighted that no other points were argued beyond those addressed in the analysis.