Excise stock verification and confiscation upheld where supervisory involvement did not create bias or defeat statutory consequences

Excise adjudication based on stock verification, mahazars and warehouse records sustained findings of illicit removal, stock substitution and unaccounted tobacco. The court held that general supervisory directions and occasional visits by the adjudicating officer did not establish disqualifying bias or breach of natural justice. It also declined to reappreciate evidence in certiorari, finding no case of absence of evidence. Breaches of removal, stacking, marking and account-keeping requirements were treated as statutory contraventions attracting confiscation, duty and penalty, and the appellate authority was found to have considered the material grounds. The writ petition was dismissed and the levy, penalty and confiscation were upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the adjudicating authority was disqualified for bias because of its participation in the investigation; (ii) whether the findings of illicit removal, substitution of stock, and unaccounted farmash tobacco were unsupported by evidence; (iii) whether the contraventions were merely technical so as to make confiscation, duty and penalty unwarranted; and (iv) whether the appellate authority failed to consider the material grounds raised in appeal.

Issue (i): Whether the adjudicating authority was disqualified for bias because of its participation in the investigation.

Analysis: The objection was raised only at the appellate stage. The authority had merely given general directions and visited the warehouse on occasions, but had not personally conducted the inspection, weighment, or recording of statements. The nature of the excise authorities was primarily executive, with quasi-judicial functions also vested in them. On those facts, no real case of official bias or breach of natural justice was made out.

Conclusion: The objection of bias was rejected and the adjudicating authority was not disqualified.

Issue (ii): Whether the findings of illicit removal, substitution of stock, and unaccounted farmash tobacco were unsupported by evidence.

Analysis: The findings were based on the mahazars, the stock verification, and the surrounding record prepared in the presence of the petitioner. The court declined to reappreciate sufficiency or adequacy of evidence in certiorari. It also held that the burden of supporting the explanation regarding sweepings from the floor lay on the petitioner and that the record did not show a finding based on no evidence.

Conclusion: The evidentiary challenge failed.

Issue (iii): Whether the contraventions were merely technical so as to make confiscation, duty and penalty unwarranted.

Analysis: The relevant rules treated removal of goods otherwise than as provided, breach of warehouse stacking and marking requirements, and failure to maintain proper accounts as offences attracting confiscation, duty and penalty. Once the factual findings stood, the statutory consequences followed. The court held that it could not interfere merely on the ground that the breaches were technical or on the quantum of punishment.

Conclusion: The plea that the violations were only technical was rejected, and the levy and confiscation were upheld.

Issue (iv): Whether the appellate authority failed to consider the material grounds raised in appeal.

Analysis: The appellate authority had noted and dealt with the principal grounds, including bias, substitution of stock, absence of evidence, and the argument that the irregularities were technical in nature. The complaint that the appeal had not been considered on merits was therefore unsustainable.

Conclusion: The challenge to the appellate order failed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was dismissed, and the orders levying duty, imposing penalty, and directing confiscation were sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Mere supervisory involvement or executive directions by an excise adjudicating officer do not, without more, establish disqualifying bias; and in certiorari proceedings the court will not upset findings of fact or statutory consequences where they are supported by material on record and the appellate authority has considered the essential grounds.

---