1985 (11) TMI 61 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Substitution of legal representatives of a certificate debtor.
2. Validity of the certificate signed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise.

Summary:

Issue 1: Substitution of Legal Representatives of a Certificate Debtor

The petitioners sought to quash the certificate proceeding O.D. Certificate Case No. 20 of 1974-75 and the order dated 29-9-1980 by the District Certificate Officer, Monghyr. The petitioners argued that there is no provision in the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (1944 Act) and the Revenue Recovery Act, 1890 (1890 Act) for substituting legal representatives of a certificate debtor. The court noted that u/s 7 of the 1890 Act, local laws are applicable, and referred to the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914 (1914 Act). Section 52 of the 1914 Act allows the Certificate Officer to proceed against the legal representatives of a deceased certificate debtor. The court held that the Certificate Officer was justified in proceeding against the petitioners as legal representatives of Gangadhar Banka, and there was no illegality in the order.

Issue 2: Validity of the Certificate Signed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise

The petitioners contended that the certificate signed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Bombay Division No. 1, was invalid as it should have been signed by the Collector of the district. The court referred to section 11 of the 1944 Act, which empowers an officer to prepare a certificate specifying the amount due and send it to the Collector of the district where the debtor resides. The court held that the certificate was validly signed u/s 11 of the 1944 Act and presumed that official acts were properly done. The court dismissed the writ petition, finding no merit in the arguments presented by the petitioners.

Additional Remarks by Udhay Sinha, J.

Udhay Sinha, J. agreed with the judgment and added that after the series of litigations, it was clear that Gangadhar Banka and Sriram Banka were liable to pay the central excise duty. He affirmed that the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, was empowered to issue requisition for realization of dues by certificate process u/s 11 of the 1944 Act. He also confirmed that the Bihar Public Demand Recovery Act allows for executing the certificate against the heirs of the certificate debtor, and thus, the revenue authorities could proceed against the petitioners. The reliance on the 1890 Act was misplaced, and the provisions of the Central Act should supplement the State Act, not supplant them.