B.P.Jeevan Reddy, C.J. - (1.) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 14-10-1988 passed by the Collector, Central Excise, Kanpur. Under this order, the Collector has overruled the objections raised by the petitioner and decided to proceed with the show cause notice dated 13-8-1987. A few facts need to be stated for a proper appreciation of the question arising herein.
(2.) On 13-8-1987 the said notice was issued by the Collector, Central Excise, Kanpur to: (1) Lohia Machines Ltd. (Scooter unit), (2) Shri L. K. Singhania, President of the Company. (3) Shri Sanjeev Shriya, Director of the Company. and (4) Shri A. Pandey, Authorised signatory, of the Company (petitioner). Calling upon them to show cause why penal action should not be taken against them under Rules 173Q(1)(d) and 198 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. It was a composite notice mentioning various contraventions committed by the Company. One of the main allegations in the show cause notice is that the company had wilfully submitted false and misleading information with a view to defraud the Exchequer of its revenue and in a fraudulent manner misrepresented and manipulated the list of inputs, which they had reasons to believe to be false, with the intent to evade payment of Central Exeise duties to the extent of Rs. 82,27,082.41p on the final product by misutilizing the 'MODVAT' Credit facility granted under Rule of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Soon after receiving the said show cause notice, the petitioner filed a writ petition in this court questioning the issuance of the said show cause notice to him. His case was that he was formerly an employee of the Central Excise Department wherefrom he retired in May, 1980 and that thereafter he has been engaged by Lohia Machines as an Excise Consultant. Being merely an Excise Consultant, and not being an employee or officer of the company he said he cannot be proceeded against for the alleged violations committed by the company. The said writ petition was disposed of by this court on 17-2-1988 at the stage of admission under the following orders: "By this writ petition, the petitioner, xxx who claims to be an authorised representative of Lohia Machines, seeks quashing of the notice dated 13-8-1987, issued by the Collector, Central Excise, Kanpur, as the provisions of Rules 198 and 173Q of the Rules framed under the Excise Act are not applicable to him. We do not think it necessary at this stage to enter into this controversy, as admittedly after the show cause notice was issued the petitioner filed a reply. A copy of which has been filed as Annexure 'A-12' to the writ petition. We think that it would be appropriate if the authorities concerned dispose of the objections raised in the reply filed by the petitioner. Therefore, this petition is finally disposed of by directing the appropriate authority, the Collector, Central Excise, Kanpur to decide the objections raised on behalf of the petitioner, that he is not liable to be proceeded with under the aforesaid Rules."
(3.) According to the respondent, the petitioner failed to appear on the date prescribed, whereupon he passed orders on 8-8-1988, rejecting the objections raised by him. This order merely stated that since the petitioner had not cared to appear in spite of being given an opportunity of personal hearing, it was evident that he Was not serious in pursuing his application/objection dated 9-12-1987 and that even otherwise, there was enough material available against him, which would be indicated at the time of the final decision. Questioning the said order dated 8-8-1988, the petitioner filed another writ petition in this court which was disposed of on 18-8-1988. This court quashed the order dated 8-8-1988 on the only ground that it does not contain any reasons for rejecting the objections submitted by the petitioner. The Collector was accordingly directed to pass a reasoned order dealing with the objections taken by the petitioner. It is then that the petitioners was given a personal hearing and the impugned order passed on 14-10-1988. Before proceeding further, it will be appropriate to notice the contents of this order.;