9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (2) TMI 83X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 17-10-1961, and checked the stock and continued the same till 21-10-1961. As a result of the verification of the stock, weighments of the existing stock were made and the weighment sheets were signed by the appellant himself. Finding that there was large deficiency in the stock, and bidi tobacco and cheroot tobacco were not stored in an orderly manner as required by the Rules and were mixed up together, the Central Excise Counsel served an order on the appellant herein demanding payment of duty in an aggregate sum of Rs. 69,606.50 on the entire shortages found at the time of the special stock taking. Complaining against this order, the appellant herein filed W.P No. 1394 of 1961 praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the demand served on him without giving an opportunity to put forward his case by the issue of a show cause notice. The writ petition was allowed by this court on 20-8-1962. Thereafter, the Counsel issued a show cause notice on 31-10-1962, requiring the appellant herein to show cause why two separate penalties should not be imposed on him under Rules 223 and 223-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and why the duty on the deficiencies noted should not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en he bona fide feels that copies of the statements will assist his defence, it is not in accordance with the principles of natural justice to deny him the simple relief of the grant of copies. We think it is sufficient to observe that there is much to be said for this view as, if the enquiry ultimately results in a finding or findings adverse to the writ petitioner, the departmental authorities obviously will not desire that the proceedings themselves could be impugned as vitiated by failure to observe principles of natural justice. For this reason, we think that the departmental authorities will do well to reconsider the question of the grant of these copies. " 2. Basing himself upon those observations, the appellant requested the Central Excise authorities to grant him copies of the depositions of the two inspectors in the departmental enquiry. The departmental officers declined to grant any such copies on the ground that the writ petition and the writ appeal have been dismissed, that those observations have been made in the absence of departmental officers, that the departmental officers were not relying upon the evidence of those witnesses in the proceedings they are taking ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urnish such information relating to the stocks as he may deem fit and make a physical check of such stocks and may at any time check the records made of the goods stocked in, or removed from the factory, warehouse or place, or their transfer within a factory to that part of the premises, if any, in which they are to be used for the manufacture of any other commodity, whether for the purpose of testing the accuracy of any return submitted under these rules, or of informing himself as to any particulars regarding which information is required for the purposes of the Act or those Rules." It is seen from the affidavit filed in support of the earliest writ petition field by the appellant herein, namely, W.P. No. 1394 of 1961, that no contention was taken that the two Inspectors inspected the premises without the authority or sanction of the Collector, nor was it the case that the appellant questioned those inspectors to show any such authority and they refused to do so. Apart from this, V. Ramaswami J. rejected this contention in the following terms - "There could be no doubt that such an order was issued by the Collector on 17-10-1961, as the original writing of the then Collector ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt that there was an order by the Collector on 17-10-1967. Though all the three grounds have been put together by the appellant himself in paragraph 18 of the affidavit and the respondents in the counter affidavit had dealt with all the issues, still we are of the opinion because of one clinching factor present in the case, that the contention of the appellant in this behalf is not correct. We have already extracted the portion of the order of V. Ramaswami J. dealing with this aspect of the matter and that portion refers to the learned Judge looking into the file and finding - "...... in fact during the enquiry on 17-4-1970, a letter was written to the petitioner's consultant when the petitioner raised the question of sanction by the Collector for such stock taking, informing him that on 17-10-1961, the Collector of Central Excise has ordered a special stock taking to be conducted in the above warehouses." In the grounds of appeal filed before this court the fact that such a letter was written to the appellant's consultant has not been denied. Therefore, we have to proceed on the basis that there was an order of the Collector on 17-10-1961, and that fact was communicated to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... personally responsible for the shortages and the shortages might have been brought about by the machinations of my political opponents." Two comments are called for with reference to this averment in the affidavit. One is that the appellant himself proceeded on the basis that there was sanction of the Collector. The second is even assuming that the appellant was under a misapprehension with regard to the existence of the sanction of the Collector, with regard to the later part about shortage, there can be no doubt whatever that the appellant admitted the existence of the shortage, but only contended that he was not responsible for the shortage and that the shortage was brought about by the machinations of his political opponents. In view of this, we are clearly of the opinion that even in fact if there was no sanction by the Collector, the result of the stock taking cannot be ignored and can be acted upon lawfully by the departmental officers. 7. As far as the second point is concerned, the learned Judge referred to the observations made by a Division Bench of this court in the writ appeal referred to already and proceeded to state that the departmental officers could have supp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
