1994 (1) TMI 104 - HC - Central Excise

Court Upholds Duty & Penalty for Unlicensed Fabric Manufacturing

The court upheld the demand of duty and penalty against the petitioner for manufacturing cotton furnishing fabrics without a license. The judge rejected ... Confiscation, fine, penalty and duty - Writ jurisdiction Issues:Challenge to demand of duty and penalty for manufacturing cotton furnishing fabrics without license.Analysis:The writ petition was filed to quash the proceedings of the authorities regarding the demand of duty and penalty for manufacturing cotton furnishing fabrics without a license. The petitioner's firm was found to be manufacturing cotton furnishing fabrics without a central excise license, leading to the seizure of fabrics and account books. The authorities calculated the duty payable on the manufactured fabrics and imposed a penalty. The petitioner denied the allegations, claiming they were manufacturing bed-sheets using art silk yarn only. Despite the petitioner's contentions, the Collector of Central Excise upheld the demand for duty and penalty. The petitioner appealed to the Central Board of Excise and Customs, which confirmed the decision. The case was further taken to the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, which reduced the penalty but upheld the duty demand. Dissatisfied with the tribunal's decision, the writ petition challenging the judgment was filed.The respondent argued that the writ petition was not maintainable due to the availability of alternative remedies. However, the petitioner contended that the existence of an alternative remedy should not preclude the court from hearing the case. The judge overruled the preliminary objection, citing discretion in invoking the court's jurisdiction despite alternative remedies. The judge thoroughly examined the orders of the authorities and the tribunal. The petitioner's main contention was the lack of chemical examination of fabric samples to determine their quality. However, the judge found no merit in this argument. The tribunal's decision was based on factual aspects, including the inspection officers witnessing the manufacturing process and the partner's admission of manufacturing cotton furnishing fabrics. The judge upheld the tribunal's decision, stating that no error of law or perversity was found. The challenge to the tribunal's order was deemed meritless, and the writ petition was dismissed without costs.In conclusion, the judgment upheld the demand of duty and penalty against the petitioner for manufacturing cotton furnishing fabrics without a license. The court rejected the petitioner's arguments regarding the lack of chemical examination of fabric samples and upheld the tribunal's decision based on factual findings. The writ petition challenging the tribunal's order was dismissed.