1976 (2) TMI 39 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved: Bias of adjudicating officer, lack of evidence for findings, technical nature of violations, and failure of appellate authority to consider submissions.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Bias of Adjudicating Officer:
The petitioner contended that the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, who adjudicated the case, was biased as he had participated in the investigation and detection of the alleged irregularities. This contention was raised for the first time in the appeal. The appellate authority found that the Assistant Collector had only given general instructions and had not participated in the inspection or recording of statements. The court held that the Central Excise officials perform both executive and quasi-judicial duties, and mere involvement in giving directions does not disqualify them from adjudicating the matter. The court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India, emphasizing that the principles of natural justice were not violated, and the petitioner's claim of bias was deemed an afterthought.

2. Lack of Evidence for Findings:
The petitioner argued that the findings of the adjudicating officer were not supported by any evidence, particularly the substitution of tobacco. The court noted that the adjudicating authority's findings were based on the material, including Mahazars, which recorded the absence of required markings on many borams. The court emphasized that it is not within its purview to assess the adequacy of the evidence in certiorari proceedings. Regarding the 418 kgs. of V.F.C. Farmash tobacco, the court held that the petitioner failed to substantiate his claim that it represented sweepings from the warehouse floor, and the burden of proof lay with the petitioner.

3. Technical Nature of Violations:
The petitioner claimed that the violations were technical and did not warrant heavy excise duty. The court referred to the relevant Central Excise Rules (Rules 151(c), 223(2), and 226) and noted that these rules provide for penalties and confiscation for violations. The court held that the findings of the adjudicating authority justified the imposition of excise duty and penalties, and it was not for the court to interfere with the quantum of punishment or deem the violations as merely technical.

4. Failure of Appellate Authority to Consider Submissions:
The petitioner contended that the appellate authority failed to consider the submissions and contentions raised in the appeal. The court found that the appellate authority had addressed the main contentions, including the alleged bias and the replacement of borams. The appellate authority also considered the argument that the violations were technical and unsupported by evidence but found them unsubstantiated. The court concluded that the appellate authority had adequately dealt with the submissions.

Conclusion:
The writ petition was dismissed, and the court upheld the orders of the Assistant Collector and the Appellate Collector, Central Excise, confirming the levy of excise duty and penalties. The court did not award costs.