Validity of Show Cause Notice Under Excises and Salt Act Upheld Despite Amendments

The court upheld the validity of the show cause notice issued by the Assistant Collector under Section 11A of the Excises and Salt Act, despite subsequent amendments designating the Collector for such notices. It dismissed the petitioner's challenge, emphasizing the notice's initial validity. Additionally, the court denied the petitioner's request for cross-examination of witnesses, noting his failure to provide crucial information. The court found the petitioner's arguments regarding non-payment of excise duty insufficient and dismissed the writ petition challenging tribunal and collector's orders, imposing costs on the petitioner due to lack of merit in the contentions.

---

---

Issues:
1. Validity of show cause notice issued by Assistant Collector instead of Collector under Section 11A of the Excises and Salt Act.
2. Denial of opportunity for cross-examination of witnesses by the petitioner.
3. Allegations of non-payment of excise duty on goods sent to Jagadhari/Yamuna Nagar.
4. Rejection of writ petition challenging the orders passed by Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal and Additional Collector of Customs and Excise.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner challenged the validity of the show cause notice issued by the Assistant Collector instead of the Collector under Section 11A of the Excises and Salt Act. The court noted that at the time of issuance of the notice in 1983, the Assistant Collector was authorized to issue such notices. Subsequent amendments in 1985 authorized the Collector to issue notices. The court held that the proceedings initiated based on the notice issued by a competent authority were valid, irrespective of subsequent amendments. The contention that a fresh notice should have been issued by the Collector in 1990 was deemed untenable and rejected.

2. The petitioner alleged that he was denied the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses gathered by the authorities, including parties at Jagadhari, bank officials, and railway authorities. The court observed that the evidence collected, such as railway documents and bank drafts, implicated the petitioner and his associates in non-payment of excise duty. The petitioner failed to disclose crucial information regarding the receipt of bank drafts, which was within his knowledge. The court found the petitioner's request for cross-examination to be a ploy, as no specific individuals were identified for cross-examination, and the circumstances did not warrant such examination.

3. The court noted that no excise duty had been paid on goods sent to Jagadhari/Yamuna Nagar, as evidenced by the collected documents. The petitioner's argument regarding the bank drafts not necessarily being related to goods sold was deemed insufficient, as he failed to provide necessary details about the transactions. The court emphasized that the burden of proof regarding the nature of bank drafts rested with the petitioner, and his failure to provide such information allowed authorities to infer non-payment of excise duty.

4. Ultimately, the court dismissed the writ petition challenging the orders passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal and the Additional Collector of Customs and Excise. The court found no merit in the petitioner's arguments and imposed costs on the petitioner. The dismissal was based on the lack of substance in the petitioner's contentions and the failure to establish grounds for challenging the tribunal and collector's orders.

---