1961 (7) TMI 1 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Violation of the rules of natural justice during both the enquiries.
2. The findings are not justified by the evidence on record.
3. The facts found do not justify the conclusion that the petitioners are liable to duty.
4. Preliminary objections regarding alternative remedy and delay.

Detailed Analysis:

Preliminary Objections:
Alternative Remedy:
The respondents argued that the petition should be dismissed because the statute provides an alternative remedy by way of appeal, which the petitioners pursued. However, the court noted that the remedy was onerous due to the requirement to deposit the tax amount, citing the case of Himmatlal Hiralal Mehta v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others. The court decided not to dismiss the petition solely on this ground.

Delay:
The respondents also argued that there was a significant delay in filing the petition. The court noted that the first notice of demand was issued in 1957, and the petitioners had ample time to pursue other remedies. The court found the delay inordinate and indicative of an attempt to delay tax payment. Despite this, the court proceeded to hear the matter on its merits.

Violation of Natural Justice:
Material Collected Behind Petitioners' Back:
The petitioners contended that the Assistant Collector violated natural justice by using material collected without their knowledge. The court examined the first order dated 28th September 1957, and found that the petitioners were granted personal hearings and were aware of the material used against them. The court concluded that the material used was confirmed by the petitioners' own account books and representations.

Opportunity to Cross-Examine:
The petitioners argued that they were not given a chance to cross-examine individuals from whom statements were taken. The court found no substance in this complaint, noting that most facts were admitted by the petitioners' representatives, and no specific piece of evidence was challenged.

Justification of Findings:
The petitioners argued that the findings were not supported by evidence. The court reviewed the mode of dealings and concluded that the findings were justified based on the materials before the officers. The court stated that the sufficiency of evidence could not be determined in a writ petition and agreed with the officers' conclusions.

Liability to Duty:
The petitioners contended that even if the facts were accepted, they were not liable for Excise Duty. The court examined Section 3 of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, which levies duties on all excisable goods manufactured in India. The court noted that the petitioners were getting cloth prepared from yarn supplied by themselves and paying only labor charges, thus engaging in manufacturing.

Definition of Manufacturer:
The court referred to the definition of 'manufacturer' in Section 2(f) of the Act, which includes anyone who employs hired labor in the production or engages in production on their own account. The court concluded that the petitioners fell within this definition, as they were getting goods manufactured for sale on their account.

Conclusion:
The court found that the petitioners were liable for the levy of Excise Duty as per the terms of the statute. The application was dismissed with costs.