E M KARUPPANNAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner herein is a grower of tobacco at his village at Elugamvalasu, Ponnivadi, Dharapuram Taluk, Coimbatore D., for several years. He has taken out a licence for the purpose of curing tobacco which he grew under the Central Excise Rules. Under the said licence, the petitioner is permitted to cure tobacco and the quantity so cured would have to be accounted for to the Central Excise authorities. In the year 1967-68 he submitted a return on 15-3-1968, showing that he has cured 1140 kgs. of chewing tobacco. When the Central Excise Officer visited the petitioner's place 9-9-1968, for ascertaining as to how he disposed of the cured tobacco, the petitioner stated that he had transferred 1106 kgs of tobacco to a private warehouse licensee, one K.S. Ponnuswami, who is a licensed dealer in Bhavani as per transport certificate T.P. No. 3. 247123, dated 24-8-1968. When the said Ponnuswami was contacted he denied having transported the tobacco from the petitioner premises.

(2.) THEREAFTER an excise duty of rupees 2, 388.96 payable on the said stock of 1106 kgs. of chewing tobacco was demanded from the petitioner by an order of the Superintendent of Central Excise, Integrated Divisional Office, Erode, dated 24-9-1969, on the ground that the liability of the petitioner as a curer of tobacco continues under R. 29 of the Central Excise, Rules, 1944, hereinafter referred to as the rules. The petitioner questioned the said demand by filing an appeal before the Collector of Central Excise, Madras, who by his order dated 17-4-1971, rejected the appeal holding that the order passed by the Superintendent of Central Excise is in accordance with law. Against the orders of the Collector, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the Central Government but that also failed. The petitioner has thereupon approached this court, for the issue of awrit of certiorarito quash the order of the Central Government upholding the demand for excise duty made against the petitioner.

(3.) IN the counter affidavit the respondents have not disputed the assertion made by the petitioner that the goods were transferred under a valid transport permit signed by the vendee, Ponnuswami, and that this has been reported to the Excise Officer at Dharapuram, who has acknowledged the same. The Central Excise Officer at Dharapuram is the proper officer with reference to the petitioner. The counter-affidavit also proceeds on the basis that the petitioner in fact produced the duplicate foil dated 24-8-1968 issued by the purchaser, the said Ponnuswami, a bonded warehouse licensee at Bhavani. However, the stand taken in the counter file is that since the alleged purchaser Ponnuswami has denied having transported tobacco from the curer's premises, the liability of the petitioner cannot cease until the transfer of ownership in the tobacco is reported to and acknowledged by the Central Excise officer, Bhavani, in whose jurisdiction Ponnuswami, the warehouse licensee is carrying on business. Thus the controversy between the parties appears to lie in a narrow compass.