9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (10) TMI 80X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sued by the Collector, Central Excise, Kanpur to : (1) Lohia Machines Ltd. (Scooter unit), (2) Shri L. K. Singhania, President of the Company. (3) Shri Sanjeev Shriya, Director of the Company. and (4) Shri A. Pandey, Authorised signatory, of the Company (petitioner). Calling upon them to show cause why penal action should not be taken against them under Rules 173Q(l)(d) and 198 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. It was a composite notice mentioning various contraventions committed by the Company. One of the main allegations in the show cause notice is that the company had willfully submitted false and misleading information with a view to defraud the Exchequer of its revenue and in a fraudulent manner misrepresented and manipul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... think that it would be appropriate if the authorities concerned dispose of the objections raised in the reply filed by the petitioner. Therefore, this petition is finally disposed of by directing the appropriate authority, the Collector, Central Excise, Kanpur to decide the objections raised on behalf of the petitioner, that he is not liable to be proceeded with under the aforesaid Rules." 3. According to the respondent, the petitioner failed to appear on the date prescribed, whereupon he passed orders on 8-8-1988, rejecting the objections raised by him. This order merely stated that since the petitioner had not cared to appear in spite of being given an opportunity of personal hearing, it was evident that he was not serious in pursuin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s in the nature of an official of the company. The objection relating to the defect in the service of the show cause notice was also rejected. Accordingly, the Collector proposed to proceed with the show cause notice. It is then that the petitioner approached this court for the third time by way of this writ petition. Along with the writ petition, he filed an application for an interim order directing the respondent Collector not to take any proceedings against him on the basis of the show cause notice dated 13-8-1987 pending the writ petition. On 22-11-1988, further proceedings in pursuance of the said show cause notice were stayed, while directing the petitioner to submit his reply/explanation to the show cause notice. 5. Sri S. P. Gupt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acturer, producer or licensee of a warehouse - (d) contravenes any of the provisions of these Rules with intent to evade payment of duty, then all such goods shall be liable to confiscation and the manufacturer, producer or licensee of the warehouse, as the case may be shall be liable to a penalty...." Rule 198 provides for penalty for obstruction in discharge of duties by the competent officers or for refusing to furnish or furnishing fake or misleading information. It reads thus:- "If any person, by himself or by any person in his employ:- (1) voluntarily obstructs, or offers any resistance to or impedes, or otherwise interferes with: or (2) refuses or fails to give or willfully gives false or misleading information to the off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Machines Ltd., it can not, therefore, be said that the finding of the Collector, Central Excise is based on no evidence, in which situation alone, this court can interfere by way of Certiorari. If there is some material to support the said finding, this court cannot interfere. It is well-settled that adequacy of the material is not the province of this court in a Certiorari. It is, therefore, not possible to quash the finding of the Collector, Central Excise that the petitioner is not a mere authorised representative, but he is an official of the company and that, at any rate, he comes within the net of Rule 198. 9. The other objection of the petitioner before the Collector, Central Excise pertains to the service of the show cause notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... false information shall be an employee; it is enough, if he furnishes false/misleading information with the necessary intent. Whether the petitioner is really responsible for furnishing such false/misleading information, whether he did so knowingly or willfully, and what is the extent of his liability, if any, in that behalf are all matters, which have to be gone into by the Collector in the proceedings yet to be taken. We cannot make any pronouncement on the said aspects. 11. It is a matter of regret that on preliminary objections, the proceedings in pursuance of the impugned show cause notice have been held up for more than three years. The proceedings shall now go on according to law without any avoidable delay. That is in the interest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
