9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (4) TMI 86X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Excise preventive staff made a surprise visit to the factory of the petitioner at Amritsar. During this visit the staff found certain documents showing clandestine removal of 87.900 tonnes of duplex paper valued of at Rs. 6,15,300/-. The checking party found that on 19-10-1985 the petitioner had written to the Directorate General of Technical Development, New Delhi that its production during the period from July, 1983 to December, 1983 was 68.91 tonnes, during January, 1984 to December, 1984 it was 195.33 tonnes and during January, 1985 to June, 1985 it was 203.10 tonnes. It was also found that the entries made in the RG 1 register contained corresponding entries for the first two periods but production for the period (January, 1985 to Jun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioner filed revision petition before the Central Government on 21-3-1996. That petition has been returned to the petitioner by the Government of India vide letter Annexure-P.6, dated 16-7-1996. 4.After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner at some length, we are of the opinion that the writ deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches and also on the ground that impugned orders do not suffer from any error of law. 5.A look at the record of the writ petition shows that it was presented before this Court on 20th March, 1997. Therefore, as against the orders passed by the Collector on 23-6-1988 and 28-10-1988, it is delayed by more than 8 years. Even if we were to consider the issue of delay in the context ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icle 226 and a petition filed after the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed for filing a civil suit should ordinarily be treated as belated. A somewhat similar view has been expressed in M/s. Trilokchand Motichand and others v. H.B. Munshi, Commissioner of Sales Tax, Bombay and another, AIR 1970 SC 898. 7.We, therefore, hold that the writ petition suffers from laches and on that ground alone it is liable to be dismissed. 8.On the merits of the case also we do not find any substance in the plea of the petitioner that the order passed by the Collector, Central Excise and the CEGAT are erroneous in law. Learned counsel argued that no independent evidence was available with the authorities to hold that the petitioner had indulged ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he manufacturer to explain the discrepancy. This is precisely what has happened in the present case. When the inspecting party found apparent discrepancy in the entries made in the RG-I register and the information supplied by the petitioner to the Director General of Technical Development, notice was given to the petitioner to explain the reason for this discrepancy. However, the petitioner did nothing more than to submit that the figures were supplied on different basis. That explanation has not been accepted by the Collector as well as the CEGAT and, in our opinion, there is no reason for interference by this Court with the view taken by the Collector and the CEGAT. In its order the Tribunal has correctly appreciated the legal as well as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng that the figures were supplied on different basis, is however, not sufficient and full facts are required to be disclosed. Further more the learned adjudicating officer has observed, inter alia, that the figures in the RG- 1 differ even from the figures indicated in the CA's certificate and again the appellants have not rendered any satisfactory explanation for the difference. Similarly, in respect of the raw material account satisfactory explanation is not forthcoming. Admittedly, they had not accounted for the quantity in question in the records prescribed for raw material accounts and the arguments that it has not been disposed of to other parties, even if true does not absolve them from the responsibility of maintaining proper acco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... department was justified in concluding that the differential quantity was produced and removed without accountal and without payment of duty in violation of the Central Excise Law and Rules. As such the duty in question was demandable. Further as suppression and mis-statement of facts was obvious in the above circumstances, therefore, the department was justified in invoking the extended period, hold that the demand was time barred and the learned Additional Collector has rightly confirmed the demand and asked the party to pay the same. Hence, I see no reason to interfere with the first adjudication order of 23-6-1988. In so far as the Second matter relating to the 1/49/89-NRB is concerned. I observed that the learned counsel is correct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
