9911796707
TMI Blog1979 (9) TMI 79X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ignment was under processing from 24-2-1972 to 20-5-1972 in the first case and from 18-2-1972 to 19-3-1972 in the second case. After processing the quantities referred to above were found short in the first case by 3.62% and in the second case by 3.38%. The Petitioner submitted an explanation stating that the variation was due to natural causes and requested that the same may be condoned. 2. The Collector, Central Excise, Guntur issued a show cause notice dated 27-2-1974 calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why duty should not be demanded from him for the shortages also under Rule 160 of Central Excise Rules. The petitioner filed an explanation stating that he had purchased the tobacco mainly from the Central belt during 1971-7 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... final. It thus did not entertain the further representation. Hence these two Writ Petitions. 3. What are the losses, which should be allowed on account of driage and other natural causes is purely a question of fact. The Collector, who is on the spot and who deals with a number of similar cases in that area, found that 3% is appropriate one. The Appellate Authority, after examining the records, found that the percentage allowed by the Collector is the normal one in that area and that no higher percentage is admissible. The Government of India was also of the same view. There are. therefore, no grounds warranting interference with the aforesaid finding of fact. 4. Sri G. Suryanarayana Murty, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, however ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is rejected. 6. The next contention of Mr. Suryanarayana Murty is that the Collector's order does not contain any reasons for fixing the loss at 3%. He says that it is arbitrary. But I am unable to see what further reasons the Collector should have given. He has to determine the probable amount of losses on account of driage and -other natural causes and he fixed at 3% having regard to the circumstances of this particular case. Admitted, no scientific estimate is possible. A rough guess has to be made which, of course, ought to be reasonable in the circumstances. There is no material to show that the estimate of loss made by the Collector is unreasonable or illegal. 7. Another submission made by Mr. Suryanarayan Murty on this aspect is t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
