9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether excise duty was payable on 'Dant Manjan Lal' manufactured by the petitioner. 2. Validity of the order dated 4th July, 1986, passed by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise. 3. Legality of the requirement for executing a bond and furnishing security for the release of seized goods. 4. Allegation of bias against the department leading to the seizure of goods on 17th February, 1986. 5. Permission to add a ground challenging the seizure of goods on 17th February, 1986. Analysis: Issue 1: The petitioner manufactured 'Dant Manjan Lal,' and a question arose regarding the payment of excise duty. An initial order by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise deemed excise duty payable. Subsequently, an appeal was allowed by the Collector (Appeals) Central Excise, leading to a remand for fresh adjudication. The petitioner then filed a writ petition challenging the adjudication dated 19th February, 1986, for lack of a hearing opportunity. The High Court directed a fresh decision after hearing the petitioner, which was done on 4th July, 1986. Issue 2: The petitioner chose not to press for quashing the order dated 4th July, 1986, opting for an appeal instead. The Assistant Collector's decision to require a bond and cash security for the release of seized goods was based on Rule 206 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, granting such authority. The Court found no jurisdictional error in this requirement and upheld the Assistant Collector's actions. Issue 3: The petitioner argued against the requirement for executing a bond and providing security, claiming lack of jurisdiction by the Assistant Collector. However, the Court upheld the legality of this requirement under Rule 206 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, as authorized by law. Issue 4: Allegations of bias against the department were made, suggesting harassment of the petitioner. The Court found no specific allegations of personal bias against any officer and dismissed the inference of bias based on the department's conduct. The petition did not seek to quash the actual seizure of goods, focusing instead on the bond and security requirement, which was found to be within the Assistant Collector's authority. Issue 5: A request was made to add a ground challenging the seizure of goods on 17th February, 1986. The Court rejected this request, stating that without necessary averments and a prayer for quashing the seizure, adding such a ground would serve no purpose. Grounds in a writ petition must support specific reliefs, which was not the case here. In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, finding no merit in the petitioner's arguments. The Court upheld the legality of the Assistant Collector's actions regarding the excise duty, bond requirement, and seizure of goods, based on the relevant provisions of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
|
