1969 (3) TMI 32 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Admissibility of petitioner's statement under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act.
2. Whether the proceedings before the Collector are judicial proceedings.
3. Validity of the action taken based on the petitioner's statement and other evidence.
4. Requirement of chemical examination to establish the identity of the tobacco.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Admissibility of petitioner's statement under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act:

The petitioner contended that his statement recorded on December 19, 1964, was a confession and could not be used against him under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. The court examined whether an excise officer qualifies as a police officer under Section 25. It was noted that in *State of Punjab v. Barkat Ram*, the Supreme Court held that a Customs Officer was not a police officer within the meaning of Section 25. Similarly, an Excise Officer is primarily concerned with the levy and collection of excise duty rather than the detection and prevention of crimes. Therefore, the statement made by the petitioner to the Excise Officer does not fall under the purview of Section 25.

2. Whether the proceedings before the Collector are judicial proceedings:

The court addressed whether the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act apply to the proceedings before the Collector. It was noted that the Indian Evidence Act applies only to judicial proceedings before a court. The Supreme Court in *State of Mysore and Others v. Shivabasappa Shivappa Makapur* held that domestic tribunals exercising quasi-judicial functions are not courts and are not bound by strict rules of evidence. Since the action against the petitioner was taken under Rule 151 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, which empowers excise authorities to confiscate goods and impose fines, these proceedings are not judicial proceedings before a court. Hence, the Indian Evidence Act does not apply.

3. Validity of the action taken based on the petitioner's statement and other evidence:

The court found that the action taken against the petitioner was not based solely on his statement. The petitioner was served with a show cause notice and given an opportunity to explain and produce evidence. In his written explanation, the petitioner admitted the shortage of 179 bags of tobacco and irregularities concerning the 171 bags of excess stock. During the personal hearing, the petitioner's counsel failed to correlate the excess stock with any permits. The Collector found the explanations unsatisfactory and noted the petitioner's history of similar offenses. The court concluded that the ultimate action was supported by relevant and cogent material on record, including the petitioner's own admissions.

4. Requirement of chemical examination to establish the identity of the tobacco:

The petitioner argued that the excise authorities should have conducted a chemical examination to establish that the biri tobacco in question was different from the sample kept by the department. The court noted that the Central Board of Excise and Customs had rejected this contention, stating that the similarity of variety is not material and conclusive. The identity of the tobacco can be established based on the distinguishing marks and numbers on the packages, which were found to be different. The court agreed with this approach and found no force in the petitioner's contention.

Conclusion:

The court dismissed the petition, stating that the legal question regarding the admissibility of the petitioner's statement loses all force since there was enough material on record to justify the action taken against him. The proceedings were not judicial in nature, and the Indian Evidence Act did not apply. The petitioner's admissions and the failure to provide satisfactory explanations for the irregularities were sufficient grounds for the action taken by the excise authorities. The writ petition was dismissed with costs.