- (1.) Civil Appeal No. 7531 of 1995 : Union of India has filed this appeal against the order of the Guahati High Court in Civil Rule No. 1940 of 1989 wherein the High Court at the instance of respondent No. 1 has quashed the order passed by the Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Shillong, (for short 'the Collector') dated 15th May 1990 and remanded the case to the Collector for a fresh decision with the following directions : "In view of the above, the adjudication order dated 15-5-90 is set aside. The Collector shall resume the proceedings and summon the aforesaid three persons viz. Sri R. Salio, Sri Liangtilinga and Sri. Lalchungunga for necessary examination in accordance with the observation made above and thereafter proceed to decide the matter afresh. The other materials obtained and already on record shall be available for the purpose. We also direct that further proceedings shall be taken by an officer other than the one who has made the adjudication order dated 15/16 May, 1990 and the competent authority in that regard shall take appropriate action and make necessary orders."
(2.) Facts relevant to the points raised in this appeal are : GTC Industries Ltd. (respondent in this appeal) is a well known manufacturer of cigarettes having its own brand names one of which is Panama Virgin. GTC Ltd. was having its cigarettes manufactured inter alia, through M/s. North Eastern Tobacco having its own place of work in Mizoram. These cigarettes were being removed from the premises of North Eastern Tobacco (hereinafter referred to 'NET') without payment of excise duty and the same was detected when certain vehicles carrying the cigarettes were apprehended by the Excise Authorities.
(3.) The Collector issued show cause notices to GTC and NET. Show cause notices were also issued to the partners of NET M/s. Sailo, Lalchunganga and Liangtilinga, to one Ajay Sukhani who was the power of attorney holder on behalf of NET and also the officers of GTC and its sister concerns with the allegation that NET was set up as a front company by GTC to evade payment of excise duty. Contravention of various provisions of the act was alleged against GTC as well as its officers.;