1969 (10) TMI 23 - SC - Central Excise

Revision to Central Government - National justice - Personal hearing - Appeal - Order void if not a speaking one - Principles of natural justice violated

Summary

Issues:
- Whether the appellant Company produced nitro-cellulose lacquer without the required central excise license and removed it for internal use without paying duty.
- Whether the appellant Company's product falls under tariff Item No. 22 (iii) (i), No. 14 (iii) (i) of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
- Whether the imposition of penalty by the Assistant Collector of Customs was justified.
- Whether the Central Government's rejection of the revision application without giving reasons is valid.

Analysis:
1. The appellant Company was accused of producing nitro-cellulose lacquer without a central excise license and removing it for internal use without paying duty. The company denied that the chemical compound used was nitro-cellulose lacquer as defined by the law.

2. The Deputy Superintendent determined a substantial amount as excise duty owed by the appellant Company for the period in question. A demand notice was issued, but the duty remained unpaid by the appellant.

3. The Assistant Collector imposed a penalty on the appellant for not obtaining a license for producing nitro-cellulose lacquer. The appellant contested that their product did not fall under the definition of nitro-cellulose lacquer, but the Assistant Collector upheld the penalty.

4. In the appeal to the Collector, the appellant raised various contentions, including the nature of the product and the duty implications. The Collector reviewed conflicting opinions and gave two personal hearings to the appellant.

5. The Central Government rejected the revision application without providing reasons for the decision. The Court emphasized the importance of giving reasons in such cases to ensure a fair and transparent process.

6. The Court referred to previous judgments highlighting the necessity of disclosing reasons when dismissing a revision application. Failure to provide reasons was deemed to render the order void in previous cases.

7. The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Central Government's order, and remanded the case for proper disposal. It suggested that an oral hearing be granted to the appellant given the complexity of the technical issues involved. The Union of India was directed to pay the costs of the appeal to the appellant Company.