1978 (9) TMI 60 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Government rejects Revision Application on duty payment for seized unbranded biris. Alleged contravention of C.E. Rules.

The Revision Application by the petitioners was rejected by the Government of India. The case involved allegations of contravention of C.E. Rules and ... Legality of search and seizure - natural justice - opportunity of hearing - onus of proof for pre-budget stock - brand/description of seized goods and duty liability - rejection of revision applicationLegality of search and seizure - Whether the search and seizure were conducted in a manner vitiating the proceedings. - HELD THAT: - The petitioners alleged improper conduct of the search, including forcible entry and excessive hours, and contended that the search did not comply with Criminal Procedure Code requirements. The record was examined and the petitioners failed to produce any substantial evidence showing non-compliance with the legal requirements for search. The Government accordingly found no basis to hold the search invalid or the proceedings vitiated on that ground.Allegations of impropriety in the search are not substantiated and do not vitiate the proceedings.Onus of proof for pre-budget stock - Whether the seized biris were pre-budget stock exempting them from duty. - HELD THAT: - The petitioners asserted that the excess biris belonged to pre-budget stock and thus were not liable to duty. The Government noted that at no stage did the petitioners correlate the seized stock with the stock they claimed to be pre-budget. In the absence of any such correlation or evidentiary linkage, the plea could not be accepted.The claim of pre-budget stock is unsubstantiated and is dismissed.Natural justice - opportunity of hearing - Whether the petitioners were denied natural justice by the Appellate Collector hearing the case ex parte. - HELD THAT: - The petitioners relied on a short hearing notice and a telegram received on 19-3-1977 seeking adjournment; they contended the matter was heard ex parte on 21-3-1977. The record shows the Appellate Collector had afforded an opportunity for personal hearing, the petitioners received prior communication that the case would be taken up in March, 1977, and the telegram/request for adjournment was not timely or properly pursued. On these facts, the contention of denial of a proper hearing was rejected.There was no denial of natural justice; the opportunity for hearing given was adequate and the adjournment request was not timely.Brand/description of seized goods and duty liability - Whether the seized biris were unbranded and therefore not liable to duty. - HELD THAT: - The petitioners maintained that the seized items were unbranded and hence not liable to duty. The inventory, however, described the seized biris with specific brand names such as 'Hara Dhaga' and 'Rita', undermining the petitioners' contention. On the basis of the inventory description, the plea that the biris were unbranded was found to be factually incorrect.The claim that the seized biris were unbranded is factually unsupported and fails.Final Conclusion: All grounds advanced in the Revision Application were examined and found unsupported; the Revision Application is consequently rejected. The Revision Application by the petitioners was rejected by the Government of India. The case involved excess stock of biris and removal of biris without duty payment. Allegations of contravention of C.E. Rules and denial of natural justice were made by the petitioners. The plea that seized biris were unbranded and not liable to duty was dismissed. The Revision Application failed on all counts and was rejected.