Penalty cannot be imposed without notice to the person proceeded against; excise penalty order was quashed.

A penalty under the Central Excise Rules could not be sustained where the show-cause notices were issued only to the manager of a tea estate, yet the penalty order was made against the estate itself. As the estate and its owner were not put on notice that penalty might be imposed on them, they were denied a proper opportunity to meet the proposed action, and the authority acted beyond the scope of the notices. The penalty order was quashed, while the authorities were left free to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether a penalty could validly be imposed on the tea estate when the show-cause notices were issued only to its manager and no opportunity was given to the owner of the estate to meet the proposed penalty.

Analysis: The notices required the manager alone to explain the alleged contravention of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The penalty order, however, was directed against the tea estate itself. Since the estate or its owner was not put on notice that penalty might be imposed on it, the authority acted beyond the scope of the notices and without affording an opportunity of being heard on that question. The order was therefore liable to be quashed. The Court also noted that this would not prevent the authorities from starting fresh proceedings in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The penalty order was invalid and was quashed in favour of the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The impugned excise penalty could not stand because it was imposed on a person or entity not properly proceeded against, though fresh proceedings under the rules were left open.

Ratio Decidendi: A penalty cannot be imposed on a person or entity that was not the subject of the show-cause notice and was not given an opportunity to answer the proposed action.

---