1972 (10) TMI 39 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Possession of offending goods by the petitioner, Interpretation of Rule 52A and Rule 71, Application of quasi penal provisions, Comparison with a previous judgment.

Analysis:

The judgment involves a Writ Petition where the petitioner, a purchaser of safety matches, was alleged to be in possession of offending goods due to a mixture of labels from different factories. The Central Excise Department seized the goods without inspecting the entire consignment, attributing blame to the petitioner for not segregating the goods. The respondent concluded that the goods should be deemed offending, despite the petitioner being a bona fide purchaser. The Assistant Collector passed an order confiscating the goods. The key issue was whether the petitioner had committed an offence by possessing the goods.

The judgment delves into the relevant rules governing the situation, particularly Rule 52A and Rule 71. Rule 52A mandates proper delivery of excisable goods under a gate pass, with provisions relaxed under the 'Self Removal Procedure.' The gate pass was filled by the manufacturer, and the goods had suffered excise duty. Rule 52A(5)(c) imposes penalties for false particulars in gate passes, attributing responsibility to the manufacturer, not the purchaser. Rule 71 pertains to packing methods, with Rule 71(3) obligating the manufacturer to label goods correctly. Violations of these rules are penalized under Rule 210, applicable to the manufacturer, not the purchaser.

The judgment emphasizes that penal provisions should be strictly applied, with offences fully proven before penalizing individuals. It compares the present case with a previous judgment involving deliberate evasion of excise duty through collusion between manufacturer and purchaser. In contrast, the petitioner in this case was unaware of any misdeclaration in the gate pass or labels. The court concludes that the petitioner, a bona fide owner, should not be penalized for an offence not fully established, especially when the manufacturer had already been penalized. The judgment quashes the order against the petitioner, citing an error in the application of quasi penal provisions.

In conclusion, the judgment provides a detailed analysis of the legal issues surrounding the possession of goods, interpretation of relevant rules, and the application of penal provisions. It distinguishes the present case from a previous judgment, ultimately ruling in favor of the petitioner and quashing the order against them.