9911796707
TMI Blog1962 (5) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ir opinion regarding the variety and quality of tobacco in these bags. On the basis of the opinion of the Panchas the inspecting officers alleged that certain bags of tobacco were removed from the warehouse without payment of duty and certain bags were received in the warehouse without transport documents. A provisional demand letter for Rs. 1,12,523-11-0 on account of the Central Excise duty was served on the petitioner under the instructions of the Collector pending final adjudication. It appears that the petitioner failed to deposit the duty demanded from him and it was proposed to auction the tobacco which had been detained from recovery of the amount demanded. The petitioner thereupon filed a petition in the High Court at Bombay (Miscellaneous Application No. 98 of 1956). This petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of that Court on 12th April, 1956. It may be mentioned that an appeal was filed by the petitioner before a Division Bench but in the meantime he represented his case to the Central Board of Revenue. Subsequently, the appeal which the petitioner had filed was not pressed by him and he withdrew the same. All these facts were not stated in the petition but th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... regard to the material points may be reproduced in his own words — "To sum up, my findings in respect of the charges under Rules 151(d) and 151(c) are that Shri Patel has privately removed 909+196= 1105 bags net weight 1,20,190 pounds and has warehoused 491 bags 196+3+4+288) net weight 39,870 pounds, otherwise than provided under Central Excise Rules 1944, I therefore, hold that the charges under Rules 151 (d) and 151(c) are established in respect of these bags." The Collector found the petitioner guilty of all the charges and in addition to the amounts on account of penalty and fine the Collector demanded a sum of Rs. 89,171-4-0 being the Central Excise Duty on 1,20,190 pounds of tobacco alleged to have been privately removed from the warehouse. The petitioner filed an appeal to the Central Board of Revenue which was disposed of on 6th February, 1959 (Exhibit 'F'), by a very short and brief order, which runs as follows :— "Having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case the Central Board of Revenue hereby direct that the demand for duty under Rule 160 of the Central Excise Rules be reduced from Rs. 89,171-4-0 to Rs. 81,581-9-0 (Rupees eighty-one thousand five-h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount of duty was required to be paid as also some penalty was imposed. Certain goods were ordered to be forfeited as well. In the course of investigation in respect of the contravention of Rule 151, the authorities had recorded the statements of certain persons. The petitioner in that case asked for a duplicate copy of these statements. The grievance of the petitioner there was that witnesses were not examined in his presence and he was not given an opportunity to cross-examine them. Indeed the authorities had acted only upon the statements of some persons which were recorded during the investigation. The Chemical Analyser's reports had been relied upon which had not been made available to the petitioner even when he asked for them. In that situation, the Madhya Pradesh Court held that the impugned order could not be sustained as it was well established that a party should have the opportunity of producing all relevant evidence on which he relied and that the evidence of the opponent should be taken in his presence and that he should be given the opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses examined by that party and that no materials should be relied on against him without givin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the goods could not be properly classified. I may repeat that there is no dispute now at least at the end of the argument as regards the quantity because, as pointed out by Mr. Seervai, detailed weighments have been produced before me and I have scrutinised them and in all these detailed statements weighments are set out, in detail, totals are drawn and at the end of each of the document it has been signed by Panchas and except five out of the 25 documents all have been signed by the petitioner himself that is not the end of it." Another matter that had been agitated before the Bombay Court in this connection related to the making of the Panchnamas. Numerous affidavits had been filed containing the allegation that the Panchas were made to sign them after the Panchnamas had been drawn up and without their contents having been read out and explained to them. According to the learned Bombay Judge this was obviously an afterthought because every Panchnama except the five that had not been signed by the petitioner, had been signed by him and his signatures had been placed after the two signatures of the Panchas. The learned Judge proceeded to observe — "He was given a clear oppo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bordinate tribunals or bodies or officers act wholly without jurisdiction, or in excess of the same, or in violation of the principles of natural justice, or refuse to exercise a jurisdiction vested in them, or there is an error apparent on the face of the record, and such act, omission, error, or excess has resulted in manifest injustice. In paragraph 11 of the petition it is stated : "If the petitioner would have been allowed the cross-examination of Panchas and investigating officers, the petitioner would have disproved many of the baseless allegations. In most of the bags the department has assumed substitution merely because the marks and numbers on bags had become dim and not clearly legible. Since the petitioner was denied the cross-examination of Panchas and other officers, the petitioner defence has been seriously prejudiced. The petitioner submits that the so-called Panchas' opinion is the only piece of evidence on which the department has tried to prove the charge of substitution." These allegations of the petitioner were denied in paragraph 11 of the return. In this situation it is not possible to hold that there is any such material on which this court can be satis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution and the second question was whether the Central Government had acted in excess of its jurisdiction or otherwise acted illegally in directing the company to register the transfer of shares in favour of certain persons. At page 1678, it was observed by Shah J. "If the Central Government acts as a tribunal exercising judicial powers and the exercise of that power is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution, we fail to see how the power of this Court can be effectively exercised if reasons are not given by the Central Government in support of its order". It was further observed :— "We are, however, of the view that there has been no proper trial of the appeals, no reasons having been given in support of the orders by the Deputy Secretary who heard the appeals. In the circumstances, we quash the orders passed by the Central Government and direct that the appeals be reheard and disposed of according to law." In view of all these authorities it can be legitimately urged on behalf of the petitioner that there has been no proper trial and disposal of the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
