1979 (7) TMI 107 - HC - Central Excise

Cross examination - Speaking orders on appeals and revisions - Departmental enquiries - Validity of

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Violation of statutory requirements in preparing mahazars.
2. Insufficient legal evidence connecting the petitioner to the seized account books.
3. Lack of reasons in the order of the Government of India.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Violation of statutory requirements in preparing mahazars:
The petitioner argued that no mahazars were prepared for the recovery of potassium chlorate and the account books, violating statutory provisions. However, the court found it unnecessary to delve into this issue since the seizures of 34 gross boxes of matches and potassium chlorate were not disputed. The primary contention was that the account books allegedly linked to the petitioner were not proven by legal evidence.

2. Insufficient legal evidence connecting the petitioner to the seized account books:
The petitioner contended that the account books seized during the raid were not proven to relate to him by any legal evidence. The Collector of Central Excise relied on statements from Sethuraman and Sundarakumar, which were recorded without the petitioner having the opportunity to cross-examine them. The court highlighted that the Collector admitted the petitioner's consistent denial of any connection to the accounts seized from the house opposite the factory. Despite the petitioner's request for cross-examination, the witnesses were not made available. The court referred to precedents emphasizing the necessity of tangible proof and the importance of cross-examination in quasi-judicial proceedings. The court concluded that the Collector's reliance on statements made behind the petitioner's back without cross-examination was unjustified.

3. Lack of reasons in the order of the Government of India:
The petitioner argued that the order of the Government of India dismissing his revision petition did not contain reasons, making it unsustainable. The court agreed, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Travancore Rayons v. Union of India, which mandates that quasi-judicial orders must be supported by reasons. The impugned order merely stated that the revision application was without merit and rejected it without providing any rationale. The court emphasized that the absence of reasons in the order deprived the petitioner of the opportunity to challenge the decision effectively and ensured that the decision-making process was free from arbitrary action. Consequently, the court set aside the order of the Government of India and remanded the matter for fresh consideration with a direction to provide a reasoned order.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the writ petition, set aside the order of the Government of India, and remanded the revision petition for fresh consideration in light of the decisions referred to in the judgment and other relevant factors. The petitioner was awarded costs, including an advocate's fee of Rs. 250.