1978 (7) TMI 116 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Alleged substitution of duty payable tobacco with non-duty tobacco by the petitioner.
2. Interpretation of Rule 151(d) of the Central Excise Rules.
3. Jurisdiction and procedural compliance of the Deputy Collector, Collector, and Central Government in passing the impugned order.
4. Applicability of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Analysis:

The judgment involves a case where the petitioner, a licensee of a private warehouse under the Central Excises and Salt Act, was found to have substituted I.A.C. processed choora tobacco with V.F.C. tobacco in his warehouse. The Deputy Superintendent of Central Excise issued a notice demanding duty payment of Rs. 28,015-08 ps. and imposed a penalty of Rs. 750/-, which was later reduced to Rs. 300/- by the Collector of Excise. The petitioner contended that he only received V.F.C. tobacco and was not liable to pay any duty or penalty. However, the authorities found that the petitioner had indeed substituted the duty payable tobacco with non-duty tobacco to evade payment.

The primary issue addressed was the interpretation of Rule 151(d) of the Central Excise Rules, which deals with penalties for the removal or concealment of goods from a warehouse. The court rejected the petitioner's argument that the rule did not apply to goods already warehoused, emphasizing that the offense under Rule 151(d) is committed by the private removal or concealment of goods either before or after they are warehoused. The court upheld the findings of the Deputy Collector, Collector, and Central Government regarding the petitioner's actions, concluding that there was no jurisdictional or procedural error in passing the impugned order.

Furthermore, the judgment highlighted that the High Court, while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, cannot sit in appeal over the factual findings of the lower tribunals, even if they appear erroneous. The court emphasized that unless there is a complete absence of evidence to support the findings, it is not within the High Court's purview to reassess the factual conclusions reached by the tribunals. Ultimately, the court dismissed the writ petition, stating that there was no merit in the petitioner's arguments and ordered costs to be paid.