1970 (3) TMI 57 - SC - Customs

Supreme Court upholds Collector's decision on excise case, emphasizing seriousness of offense

JETHMAL Versus UNION OF INDIA

JETHMAL Versus UNION OF INDIA - 1999 (110) E.L.T. 379 (SC) Issues:1. Challenge to the order of the Collector of Central Excise2. Admissibility of statements made by individuals in police custody3. Failure to respond to show cause notice and subsequent penalties4. Natural justice principles in the case5. Imposition of personal penalty exceeding statutory limitsAnalysis:1. The appellant filed a writ petition challenging the order of the Collector of Central Excise on various grounds. The appellant argued that the statements made by individuals while in police custody were inadmissible as evidence. Additionally, the appellant claimed there was no material connecting him to the alleged smuggling activities. The appellant also contended that the penalty imposed exceeded the statutory limit. The appellant alleged that his written reply to the show cause notice was not considered, and he was denied a fair hearing, violating the rules of natural justice.2. The Collector of Central Excise affirmed that no reply was received from the appellant to the show cause notice. The Collector considered the statements made by the individuals before the Customs authorities, indicating the appellant's involvement in the smuggling activities. The High Court's single Judge rejected the appellant's arguments, stating that the appellant had an opportunity to respond but failed to do so. The Judge found no violation of natural justice principles and upheld the penalty imposed by the Collector.3. Appeals were filed by other individuals challenging the Collector's order, and the Division Bench accepted the Collector's affidavit, confirming the lack of responses from the relevant parties to the show cause notice. The Division Bench held that the omission of the appellant's name in the notice did not prejudice him. The Bench also ruled that the Collector's decision was not subject to direct evidence rules and upheld the penalty imposed by the Collector.4. The Division Bench referred to a previous court decision to support the imposition of penalties exceeding Rs. 1,000 and restored the penalties imposed by the Collector. The Bench emphasized that the Collector had the authority to proceed based on the available evidence and upheld the penalty imposed on the appellant. The Division Bench's decision was influenced by the legal interpretation of the term 'concerned in any such offence' in the penalty provision.5. The Supreme Court dismissed the appellant's appeal, rejecting arguments related to the admissibility of statements made to Customs officers and the imposition of a personal penalty exceeding statutory limits. The Court upheld the Collector's decision, emphasizing the seriousness of the offense and the appellant's involvement in the smuggling activities based on the evidence presented. The Court found no merit in the appellant's arguments and upheld the penalties imposed by the Collector.