B.P.Jeevan Reddy, C.J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for Central Government, Mr. A.K. Gupta.
(2.) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 16/17-7-1980 and the order dated 15-7-1980.
(3.) The petitioner says that it is a Small Scale Industry. It was granted licence in 1964. It is engaged in manufacture of Mill Board/Straw Board etc. A certificate of exemption dated 29-7-1964 was granted by the Central Excise Collector, Kanpur to the petitioner. It exempted the petitioner "from payment of duty on the 125 M.T. of Straw Board or Pulp Board including Grey Board in a financial year." The petitioner says that he was availing of the said exemption and not paying any duty. While so, he was served with a notice of demand in Form D.D. 2 dated 26-7-1969/19-8-1969 calling upon him to pay a sum of Rs. 1,25,765/- towards the duty on Pulp Board manufactured by him. The petitioner says that he made a representation against the said demand but to no avail before the Collector, Central Excise (Appeals). The appellate authority allowed the appeal by its order dated 20-12-1976 on the ground that the said order does not disclose on what account the demand was raised and also because the authority failed to intimate the petitioner of the grounds of the said demand in spite of his repeated requests. The operative portion of the appellate order reads as follows: "The result is that I myself am unable to analyse the reasons of the demand, the period to which it relates and the various factors, which lead the Assistant Collector in issuing the letter dated 25-8-1976. Therefore, I am not in a position to discuss the merits of the case. In view of the above discussions I have been left with no other option but to remand the case back to the Assistant Collector for a de novo decision after observing principles of natural justice and then passing a fresh speaking order. In view of my above decision the order of the Assistant Collector is set aside." In pursuance of this order, it appears, a notice was given to the petitioner to produce documentary and oral evidence in support of his case. This was replied to by the petitioner on 27-6-1980, whereunder the petitioner protested what he called reopening of the case after 3 1/2 years and also submitted that he will submit his documentary and oral evidence at the appropriate stage. Thereupon, it appears on 17-7-1980 the Assistant Collector passed an order confirming the earlier demand. This order recites that in spite of giving repeated opportunities, the petitioner has failed to produce any documentary/oral evidence in support of his case and, therefore, the demand raised against him is confirmed.;