Natural justice and proof of duty payment failed to defeat confiscation where no material displaced the department's findings.

A writ challenge to confiscation and penalty under central excise law failed where the petitioners could not show a real denial of cross-examination or personal hearing, and their objection was raised too late without support in the record. On the merits, the petitioners gave inconsistent explanations about the seized wire ropes and produced no documentary material to show that duty had already been paid or that the goods were not liable to confiscation. The authorities were therefore justified in relying on witness statements and in holding that the goods had been removed from the factory without payment of duty. The confiscation and penalty were upheld and the writ petition was dismissed with costs.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the impugned confiscation and penalty were vitiated for denial of opportunity of cross-examination and personal hearing. (ii) Whether the petitioners had established that the seized wire ropes were not liable to confiscation or that duty had already been paid.

Issue (i): Whether the impugned confiscation and penalty were vitiated for denial of opportunity of cross-examination and personal hearing.

Analysis: The record did not show that the petitioners were prevented from cross-examining the witnesses whose statements were relied upon. No such grievance had been raised in the statutory appeal, and the objection was taken for the first time in the writ petition. The complaint regarding the hearing before the revisional authority also found no support, as the request for adjournment was not shown to have reached the authority before the scheduled hearing. A party cannot insist that proceedings be adjourned until it chooses to appear.

Conclusion: The plea of violation of natural justice was rejected and the petitioners failed on this issue.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioners had established that the seized wire ropes were not liable to confiscation or that duty had already been paid.

Analysis: The goods were admittedly liable to excise duty from 1 March 1973. The petitioners advanced inconsistent defences, first asserting that the goods had been manufactured and stored prior to the date of dutiability, and alternatively asserting that duty had already been paid. No records or other material were produced to substantiate either version. In these circumstances, the authorities were justified in accepting the statements of the tempo driver and owner and in holding that the goods had been removed from the factory without payment of duty.

Conclusion: The petitioners failed to disprove the charge, and the confiscation and penalty were upheld.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the excise orders failed in its entirety, and the writ petition was dismissed with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ challenge to confiscation under the central excise law will fail where the party neither establishes denial of a real opportunity to defend nor produces material to displace the department's finding that excisable goods were removed without payment of duty.

---