1986 (5) TMI 171 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Seizure of goods by Assistant Collector without prior adjudication.
2. Lack of opportunity for hearing before passing the order.
3. Challenge against the seizure and maintainability of appeal.
4. Restraint on determining excise duty before liability is decided.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking the quashing of the seizure of goods by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Allahabad, without prior adjudication of liability. The petitioner argued that the seizure was unsustainable as no adjudication had been made before the order of seizure. The writ petition was based on an order of the Collector (Appeals) which set aside an earlier decision of adjudication and required a de novo decision. The respondent claimed that an order of adjudication was passed on 19th February, 1986, which the petitioner contested, stating they were not given a proper opportunity for a hearing before the order was issued.

2. The petitioner contended that they were not granted a proper hearing before the order dated 19th February, 1986, was passed. The petitioner relied on Annexures -15 and 16, which indicated that a date for personal hearing was fixed for 7th January, 1986, but the petitioner was not given a chance to present their case. The respondent argued that even if the petitioner appeared on 15th January, 1986, and submitted papers, it did not fulfill the requirement of a proper hearing as per the notice fixing 7th January, 1986, as the date for the hearing.

3. The respondent raised the issue of the maintainability of the writ petition challenging the seizure, stating that an appeal was the appropriate remedy. However, the petitioner informed the court that they were not pressing for relief against the seizure as the order dated 19th February, 1986, was being quashed, and the adjudication proceedings were to be decided afresh based on the order of remand by the Collector.

4. The petitioner requested that the respondent be restrained from determining the excise duty payable without first deciding the liability of the petitioner to pay any excise duty. The court deemed it unnecessary to issue such a direction, stating that determining the quantum of excise duty was contingent upon establishing the liability to pay the duty.

In conclusion, the writ petition succeeded, and the order dated 19th February, 1986, was quashed. The respondent was directed to re-decide the matter based on the order of remand, ensuring the petitioner is given a proper opportunity for a hearing. A specific date was fixed for the petitioner to appear before the respondent for a personal hearing. The court emphasized the importance of a timely decision by the respondent after the hearing.