9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (2) TMI 138X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce at No. 31, Netaji Subhas Road, Calcutta. National Tobacco Company had a factory at Agarpara in the State of West Bengal and another factory at Biccavolu in Andhra Pradesh and engaged in the manufacture and sale of cigarettes and smoking mixtures. The National Tobacco Company was amalgamated with Birpara Tea Company pursuant to a scheme of amalgamation sanctioned by the Calcutta High Court in January, 1978. With effect from the date of merger i.e., 1-3-1977, the name of Birpara Tea Company was changed to Duncans Agro Industries Limited (DAIL). DAIL carried on the business of manufacture and sale of cigarettes through its tobacco division at two factories - one situate at Biccavolu in the State of Andhra Pradesh known as Duncan Tobacco Com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a non-executive Director of DAIL and as Chairman, he presided over the meetings of the Board of Directors and was "not in any manner connected with the day to day working of the said company". He also sought inspection of the documents relied upon in the show cause notice. M/s. Gagret and Co., a firm of Advocates, issued a notice to the Directorate of Audit, Customs and Central Excise, on behalf of Sri G.P. Goenka admitting that the notice was received by Sri Goenka but "no notice has been issued to DAIL or to any of its other Directors" and that a careful reading of the show cause notice disclosed that it was only addressed to M/s. New Tobacco Co. Ltd., and two other companies and persons with whom Sri Goenka had no connection. The Advoca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondents, it was pleaded that the show cause notice and the addendum were served on Sri G.P. Goenka as Chairman of DAIL and he was the principal officer of the company and he received the same as the agent of the company. Sri Goenka responded to the show cause notice on different occasions firstly on 27-10-1986 and subsequently on 23-2-1987. M/s. National Tobacco Co., also responded to the show cause notice on 27-10-1986 and the letter of M/s. National Tobacco Company clearly showed that it was a wholly owned subsidiary of DAIL. The petitioner also responded by their letter dated 23-2-1987 addressed to the Collector of Central Excise wherein they have forwarded copies of opinions given by two former Chief Justices of India - Justice Y.V ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Section 37C of the Central Excise Act should be read harmoniously with Section 51 of the Companies Act. No precedent has been cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 6.In opposition to this, Sri Innayya Reddy, learned senior Standing Counsel for the Union of India, has contended that the petitioner-company having submitted to the jurisdiction of the third respondent cannot now extricate itself especially after it had sought a ruling on the question concerning the validity of service of notice. Service of notice on Sri Goenka must be deemed to be service of notice on the company. The material available warrants piercing the veil of the corporate entity in order to see who is liable for dues and that the petitioner-company sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a could be deemed to be the authorised agent of the petitioner-company? It is not the case of the petitioner that some one other than Sri Goenka was the authorised agent. The Central Excise Act does not prescribe as to what categories of officers of a company should be permitted to act as authorised agents. Having received the notice, Sri Goenka raised an objection asserting that he was not liable for any of the alleged acts of evasion of central excise duty. The petitioner company itself, it is clear from the record, objected to the levy and sought a decision on the preliminary question as to the validity of service of notice. This objection which was put forth in the form of a letter without any date was actually received by the third res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y as to the mode in which it was served. Whether the companies in question before amalgamation with the petitioner company had really indulged in acts of evasion of duty is outside the purview of this writ petition. 9.Apart from the fact that the company had full knowledge of the contents of the show cause notice as can be seen by the objections it raised before the third respondent as stated in the counter affidavit, we are also of the considered opinion that Sri Goenka must, in the fact situation, be deemed to be the authorised agent of the petitioner-company. As the Chairman of the company, it was brought to his notice the alleged acts of evasion of excise duty by the impugned show cause notice. A reading of the show cause notice in its ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
