TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1972 (10) TMI 39
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o the Writ made by the High Court and upon hearing the arguments of M/s. T.R. Srinivasan, and K. Ramamurthy, Advocates for the petitioners, and of Mr. P. Jagaraman for the Central Government senior standing counsel, on behalf of the respondent herein, the court made the following order :- 2.The petitioner is admittedly a bona fide purchaser for value of 600 gross of safety matches. It is not in dispute that the purchased the goods from Jothiammal Match Industries, P-L.4 No. 29/67 Kanmasoorangudi within the district of Ramanathapuram. It is not in dispute that at the time when the goods were removed from the factory of Jothiammal Match Industries, which I shall refer to as 'Jothi' the goods suffered the necessary excise duty and the corre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... seized 600 gross of 50 match boxes for action under the Central Excise Rules. The challenged order was passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise Sivakasi. After giving an opportunity to the petitioner and another, the respondent came to the conclusion that as there was a mixture of labels of Jothi factory and as such mixture is not warranted under the rules, the goods in Jothi factory or wherever they might have been transported should be deemed to be offending goods within the meaning of Rules 71(3) and 52A(5) of the Central Excise Rules. Admittedly no steps were taken to check the entire consignment and segregate the so called offending goods, but the blame is transmitted to the petitioner that he did not segregate it inspite o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d by the Department. The Original procedure in vogue was known as the 'physical control' procedure. It appears that this caused inconvenience and there was also concurrent urge on the part of the Government to repose greater trust and confidence in the trade and industry and with a view to lessen the administrative burden of the Central Excise Department, the 'Self Removal Procedure' was introduced as a matter of fact there was such a change is noted in the judgment of this Court in WP No. 3427 of 1971. Obviously therefore, the gate pass was made out under the self-removal which means that Jothi filled up the gate pass and sent it with the goods removed from her factory with the description contained in the gate pass which suffered an excis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l procedure'. Therefore the gate pass and the particulars therein should have been entered by the manufacturer, namely Jothi. The petitioner has nothing to do with the entries in that gate pass. That this is the situation is not denied. In those circumstances, can the petitioner be penalized as if he has committed an offence under Rule 52A(5)(c)? I am of the view that he cannot. Section 52A(5)(c) refers to an overt act on the part of the delinquent manufacturer who deliberately given false particulars in gate pass. As long as the purchaser of excisable goods from a factory is not concerned with the gate pass or the entries made therein this quasi penal provision cannot be attracted so as to punish the petitioner. 5.The next rule referred....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a, Madurai Petitioner v. The Collector of Central Excise, Central Revenue Buildings, Madurai &n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the department. No one is sure whether out of the entire 600 gross matches how many labels are attributable to 'Velmuguran' factory. The law that is sought to be applied by the respondent so as to bring to book the act, if any, of the petitioner is a quasi penal one. In such proceedings unless one offence is strictly and fully brought home to the accused concerned, he cannot be penalized on suspicions. It was the duty of the department to check entire 600 gross matches and they ought to have separated the labels which are acceptable from those which are not acceptable. There was also a failure of public duty in this behalf. No one can be punished on bare suspicions. No one again can be punished for a second time for the same offence when an....