9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (10) TMI 53X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gree that the writ petition itself can be disposed of at the admission stage and accordingly they are heard. 4.The question is whether the petitioner had violated the conditions regarding the use of the machinery subject to which they were exempted from the whole of the excise duty leviable on them, under Notification No. 123/81-C.E., dated 2-6-1981. It is not in dispute that the first respondent granted exemption under that notification in respect of that machinery under his orders dated 25-3-1991, 3-1-1992 and 13-1-1993. It is the petitioner's case that after acquiring the said machinery it has been putting them to use in its premises either at the factory or at the mines only in connection with the manufacturing and in total accordance with the terms and conditions of the exemption granted in respect of them under the said notification. The petitioner submits that on or about 16-7-1993 the first and second respondents visited the quarries and factory of the petitioner and effected seizure of nine items of the machinery on the ground that the same had been put to such use and at such places not specifically approved or permitted by the first respondent while granting exemption ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... P) Ltd., have been using the indegenous goods procured under Notification No. 123/81-C.E., dated 2-6-1981 free of duty not at their factory of manufacture notified by them and which was declared for grant of a L-4 licence No. 3/89 (amended by CER No. 6/92) but at the quarries/mines which are far away from their factory. Whereas it appears that M/s. Shiva Shankar Granites Pvt. Ltd. have violated the conditions of the Notification No. 123/81-C.E., dated 2-6-1981 as amended, the terms of the general bonds executed by them appear liable to be enforced unless they pay the Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 13,12,799.43 as computed in Annexures - A, B and C. M/s. Shiva Shankar Granites Pvt. Ltd., Khammam are therefore asked to pay the Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 13,12,799.43 within 15 days failing which the terms of the bonds will be enforced to realise the amounts and the Bank Guaranteed amounts will be realised without further reference to M/s. Shiva Shankar Granites Pvt. Ltd., Khammam." It is significant that the first respondent states in the said notice that "it appears" that the petitioner has violated the conditions of the notification dated 2-6-1981 as amended an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... conditions of that notification and therefore the bonds and bank guarantees have become enforceable. 7.The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had not violated any of the conditions imposed under the notification dated 2-6-1981 and that using the machinery in question at the quarries within the mining circle will not amount to violation of the said conditions. One of the said conditions is that the capital goods so exempted under the notification should be brought "into an undertaking", i.e., "directly to the factory of manufacture" and used in the manufacture of articles solely meant for export. The learned Counsel submits that at the time of making of the applications for exemption under the said notification in respect of the machinery in question, it was brought out that that (sic) machinery would be used in the quarrying area, i.e., in the process of extracting granite in rough condition. He also submits that the quarries are located about 5 kms. from the factory proper where the granite is cut to size and polished before it is marketed by export. He submits that using the machinery in question at the factory site was not in contravention of the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... making it clear that the first respondent could act in accordance with law. This is not a case where the petitioner has conceded or admitted that he violated the conditions of the notification and that he became liable to the excise duty. 9.The first respondent states in his counter-affidavit that "non- compliance of the bond and enforcement thereof are administrative in nature and not quasi-judicial in character and no appeal in law" would lie against the said action as per the decision of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal in K. Thangaswamy v. Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Madurai - 1985 (21) E.L.T. 525 (Tribunal). But the question here is not whether an appeal lies against an administrative action or decision; the question is whether such an administrative action or decision, when it results in civil consequences, can be taken without following the principles of natural justice and fair play. On the other hand, when no remedy by way of an appeal is available to the citizen, it is all the more necessary that the administrative authorities should act in consonance with the principles of fair play and not arbitrarily when civil consequences flow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tice in the decision-making process of the administrative body having civil consequence has been upheld by this Court but it is not necessary to refer to all such decisions. Prof. Wade in his Administrative Law (1988) at page 503, has very aptly observed that the principles of natural justice are applicable to almost the whole range of administrative powers." [Emphasis supplied] The principle applies equally to tax matters. Considering the question whether opportunity to show cause should be afforded to intending purchaser and seller of property before making an order of compulsory purchase of the property under Section 269UD of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Supreme Court in C.B. Gautam v. Union of India [(1993) 1 S.C.C. 78] held that it was necessary though no express provision was made in the Statute, observing as follows : "It must, however, be borne in mind that Courts have generally read into the provisions of the relevant sections a requirement of giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard before an order is made which would have adverse civil consequences for the parties affected." In Collector of Central Excise, Patna v. I.T.C. Limited [1994 (71) E.L.T. 324 (S.C.) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
