9911796707
TMI Blog1970 (10) TMI 68X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dication Order No. 193/67, dated 31-10-1967 passed by the Superintendent, Central Excise, Tanuku Circle in his C.O.R. No. 20/67, dated 31-10-1967 imposing a fine of ₹ 100/- for the contravention of Rule 151(c) read with Rule 32(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 2. It is averred by the petitioner that the local Central Excise Officers having been prejudiced against him had issued a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r taking action against him was not supplied to him. Hence this writ petition. A counter affidavit was filed by the departmental authorities denying the allegations of malafide attributed against the departmental officers. The petitioner is liable to be proceeded against for the contravention of Rules 151 (c) read with Rule 32 (i) of the Central Excise Rules 1944. It was found on verification on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ners and also on account of the failure of the officer in not visiting the warehouse after intimation for the purpose of verification and receipt of packages by his client. In any event the petitioner had been denied a reasonable opportunity to meet the case of the department as the witnesses have been examined behind the back of the petitioner and their examination has been made use of by the aut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the tobacco worth about ₹ 11,000/- is not questioned in this writ petition. As the petitioner states that it does not belong to him, it is unneccessary for me to go into that question, the impugned order is quashed in respect of the imposition of penalty of ₹ 100/- on the petitioner under Rules 151(c) and 32(i) of the Central Excise Rules, for improper reception of tobacco under T. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
