9911796707
TMI Blog1955 (2) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... war Shah Road, Calcutta, and that tea-waste will only be used for the manufacture of the aforesaid commodity and in the manner set out in the Schedule appended to the application. In the Schedule it was stated that the process of manufacture would be chemical extraction and then concentration and in-vacuo evaporation. It was also stated that solvents will be used in the process. It was expressly mentioned in the applications that the petitioner company was a licensee for manufacture of drugs and chemicals of the standard prevailing under the British Pharmacopoeia. Such licence is granted by the West Bengal Government under the Drug Control Order. A licence was issued to the petitioner for manufacturing Caffeine from tea-waste and the petitioner company also executed a bond. This licence was renewed from time to time. The case of the respondents is that secret information was received to the effect that for several years past the petitioner company had been utilising enormous amounts of duty-free tea-waste, by selling them as edible tea, and not manufacturing Caffeine as stipulated in the licence, thus earning large profits without payment of Government duty. The authorities followe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... crude Caffeine was subsequently refined. It is also admitted that there are some discrepancies between the actual stock and what appears in the books. On these facts, I think that the authorities are quite justified in launching a thorough investigation into the matter and using all their available resources for determining whether the petitioner company has complied with the Excise Acts and Rules and whether Government has been deprived of any revenue. The immediate cause which has given rise to this application is a notice issued by the Superintendent Central Excise Land Customs, Central Preventive Circle Calcutta, dated the 16th December, 1952, to the petitioner, under Section 14 of the Central Excises and Salt Act. That Section empowers Excise officers mentioned therein, to summon any person whose attendance they consider necessary either to give evidence, or to produce a document or any other thing, in any inquiry which such officers are making, for any of the purposes of the Act. A summons to produce document and other things may be for the production of certain specified documents and things or for the production of certain description in the possession or under the control ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld not be made or given as this Court may seem fit and proper. 4 Mr. Roy appearing on behalf of the petitioner argues that the summons under Section 14 is wholly without jurisdiction. He says that neither Section 14 nor Rule 9, mentioned in the summons issued Under Section 14, has any application to the facts of the present case. Under Rule 9, "no excisable goods shall be removed from any place where they are produced, cured or manufactured......". He says that tea-waste which was dealt with by the petitioner company was neither, produced, cured or manufactured at the place where the petitioner carried on business. He says that the proper Rules to be applied are to be found in Chapter 10 of the Central Excise Rules, the precise Rules application being Rules 192 to 197. He points out that in case where excisable goods are to be used in an industrial process, any person wishing to obtain remission of duty must make an application to the Excise Authority and then licence is given and there are many restrictions as to storage, keeping of accounts, etc. Access has to be given to authorised officers to inspect and test the accuracy of any return submitted under the Rules, or to inform ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that there was no intention of probing into any secret industrial process, nor is the grievance of the petitioner a real one. What was found on inspection was that the petitioner was not manufacturing proper Caffeine which it undertook to do under the licence. For example, in the year 1948, no books or documents can be produced by the Company to show that any Caffeine at all was produced. In this application, I am not deciding the disputed questions of facts, and it is not possible for me to say whether the charges levelled against the petitioner company are justified or not. All I am concerned with, is to see whether the summons issued under Section 14 is in proper exercise of the statutory power. As regards the enquiry about the ingredients, it arises because of the report of the Assistant Chemical Examiner attached to the customs. It is an admitted fact that the R. G. 16 returns for a long time shows that the petitioners were manufacturing something which is at best, crude Caffeine. This is certainly not what they undertook to do under their licence or bond. I think it relevant to find out as to whether they were really pursuing a scientific process of manufactrue and were manuf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
