TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1976 (2) TMI 39
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etitioner, who furnished his explanation denying the said allegations and mainly contending that the irregularities if any, found are of a technical nature, not meriting confiscation and excise duty. A personal hearing was also given to the petitioner and, thereafter, the Asst. Collector passed orders on 25-7-1971 holding (i) that, the tobacco received illicitly was liable for confiscation (ii) that, excise duty must be paid on the quantity illegally removed from the godown. A small fine was also levied. Towards the excise duty, a demand in a sum of Rs. 1,94,451.68 ps. was issued. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Collector, but the same also was dismissed. Hence this writ petition. 3.Shri G.V.R. Mohana Rao, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, raised four submissions, viz., (i) that, the adjudicating officer, namely, the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, himself had participated in the investigation and detection of the alleged irregularities and that, the entire investigation was made under his directions and control, and, therefore, he is in the nature of a prosecutor. For that reason, he cannot also act as a Judge. In other words, it was contended that t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....alogy of "Court" and the ordinary investigation agency like police, is wholly inappropriate in such cases. The foremost illustration is that of the income-tax officers and sales-tax officers who themselves collect material, investigate and also adjudicate upon the matters before them. In other words, the Central Excise officials are primarily executive authorities, who also perform certain quasi-judicial duties. Merely because the Asstt. Collector gave certain general directions or visited the petitioner's warehouse on certain occasions, it cannot be said that he is disqualified from adjudicating the said matter to the ground of bias. The bias alleged hereto is official bias, and no case has been brought to my notice by the learned Counsel, which supports his contention. The only decision referred to by the learned Counsel is one reported in R.V. Altrincham Justice, (1) 1975 (2) All England Reporters, 78 (at p. 81). In that case it was held that since the Chairman of the Bench of the Magistrate, which convicted the petitioner of supplying smaller quantities of vegetables than was agreed was a member of the Country Council Education Committee and a Governor of two Chasire School, wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., evading the excise duty, he could have very well disposed of the same without leaving the same into his warehouse. I am afraid, the learned Counsel is over simplifying the issue. Each kg. of tobacco is liable to excise duty though, for the sake of facility, excise duty is collected when it is sought to be removed from the warehouse or godown. The allegation against the petitioner is that he illicity removed certain tobacco from his licensed premises, without paying the excise duty thereon and had replaced the same with fresh stocks of tobacco. This finding was arrived at on the basis of the material before the adjudicating authority, including the contents of the Mahazars. It was recorded in the Mahazars prepared in the presence of the petitioner, that many of the borams did not contain the markings of the licenses which was obligatory, while a few of the borams did bear such markings. I am not able to say that the said findings of substitution is based on no evidence. It is not for this court to go into the adequacy or sufficiency of the material, in certiorari proceedings. 7.The second aspect stressed by the learned Counsel is relating to 11 bags weighing 418 kgs. of V.F.C. Fa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d with the same quality in each shall be kept together in separate lots and the goods shall be arranged in separate rows, each row, containing, the same number of packages of uniform size and weight. The Collector may also require the licensed person or keeper of the warehouse to maintain stock cards in respect of the separate lots and to leave an accessible passage free of packages in the middle of the warehouse or other place of storage and a similar passage along the walls of such warehouse or other place of storage at right angles to the aforesaid passage, so as to facilitate counting, and may require that each separate lot or consignment shall be clearly marked with the number and date of the document under which the goods were admitted to the place of storage, the number of the relevant record in the Entry Book, stock card account or warehouse register and such other identifying particulars as he may direct. (2) A breech of this Rule shall be punishable with a penalty which may extend to one thousand rupees. Rule 226 read as follows :- R. 226 :- Where any person is required by these Rule to maintain any entry book, stock account, or warehousee register in respect of goods....