1967 (4) TMI 44

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... content was reported to be 51.9 per cent. It was calculated on the basis that the tobacco has ash content of 19 per cent. From that report, the Excise authorities, prima facie, came to the conclusion that the original lot had been surreptitiously removed by the petitioner from the warehouse without payment of duty and substituted by an equal quantity of adulterated and inferior tobacco containing was, accordingly, issued to the petitioner on 23rd November, 1960, requiring him to show cause as to why a penalty should not be imposed on him for contravention of Rules 151(c) and (d), and 40 read with 171 and 42 read with 226 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and tobacco confiscated under Rules 42, 32 and 151 of the said rules. Some correspond....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... me an acknowledgment by the petitioner, in writing of the receipt of the letter dated 2nd February, 1962, which was not denied by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. This mis-statement in the petition is rather unfortunate and I would have been inclined to dismiss the petition on this ground alone, but for the special circumstances of this case. These special circumstances are that a number of petitions had been filed by various parties and one by the petitioner, through the same Counsel, and it is not impossible that this statement might have been made as a result of some confusion. The petitioner also wanted to examine certain officers of the department as, according to him, the warehouse had been checked by various officers from tim....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ral Excise, who was exercising quasi-judicial functions. The procedure suggested is unthinkable in field of quasi-judicial determinations. The party was entitled to examine the concerned officers to prove the facts, suggested by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, rather than leaving it to the authority to seek clarification from the officers itself. From this, it follows that the Superintendent, Central Excise, was wrong in disallowing the examination of the witnesses and resorting to the suggested procedure for clarification of certain points from those witnesses. Mr. S.N. Shankar, learned Counsel for the respondents, argued he wanted to examine. Whatever be the importance of that contention, the Superintendent did not disallow the ex....