MUNSHILAL BUDHSEN Vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, ALLAHABAD
LAWS(ALL)-1965-11-43
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on November 19,1965

Munshilal Budhsen Appellant
VERSUS
COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, ALLAHABAD Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

<RC>LAWSUIT(ALL) 1965 0 410;ELT 2000 126 12;</RC> HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD <JGN>D. D. SETH</JGN> MUNSHILAL BUDHSEN COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE,ALLAHABAD <AT>CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS WRIT PETITION 2150 OF 1959</AT> 19.11.1965 <SUBJECT>CONSTITUTION,CUSTOMS,EXCISE</SUBJECT><SI> CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ART 226;CENTRAL EXCISE RULES,1944 R 154;CENTRAL EXCISE RULES,1944 R 156A(3);CENTRAL EXCISE RULES,1944 R 156A(4);CENTRAL EXCISE RULES,1944 R 156(3);CENTRAL EXCISE RULES,1944 R 153;CENTRAL EXCISE RULES,1944 R 156(B);SEA CUSTOMS ACT,1878 SEC 189; <ACT>CONSTITUTION OF INDIA</ACT> <S>ART.226</S><ACT>CENTRAL EXCISE RULES,1944</ACT> <S>R.154</S><ACT>CENTRAL EXCISE RULES,1944</ACT> <S>R.156A(3)</S><ACT>CENTRAL EXCISE RULES,1944</ACT> <S>R.156A(4)</S><ACT>CENTRAL EXCISE RULES,1944</ACT [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. UNITED MOTORS INDIA LIMITED [REFERRED]
HIMMATLAL HARILAL MEHTA VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This petition under Article 226 of the constitution arises out of the following circumstances :-
1 The petitioner is a firm carrying on business of Commission Agency at Farrukhabad and deals in tobacco and potatoes. It does business of bringing tobacco, potatoes and other commodities from producers and selling them to its constituents. The goods so purchased are kept in warehouses belonging to the petitioner. The petitioner's firm holds a licence under the Central Excise and Salt Act, which authorises the firm to warehouse tobacco purchased by it. Messrs. Ram Swarup Ganga Sagar of district, Etawah, purchased 98 bags of tobacco from the petitioner for sale at Konch under the Commission Agency of Chuni Lal Gyasi Lal in September, 1958. Before removing the tobacco from the warehouse of the petitioner Ram Swarup Gangasagar gave certificate C.T. 2. The tobacco reached the destination at Konch and was warehoused there in the warehouse of Chunni Lal Gyasi Lal and this fact was endorsed on the back of certificate C.T. 2. Sometime in Sept./October, 1958, Ram Swarup Ganga Sagar again purchased tobacco weighing 117.35 Maunds from the petitioner. This tobacco was also to be despatched to Konch to be sold there in the Commission Agency of Chunni Lal Gyasi Lal. Again Ram Swarup Ganga Sagar, as required under the Central Excise Rules of 1944, gave the petitioner a certificate C.T. 2. This certificate was in respect of a general bond issued to Chunni Lal Gyasi Lal of Konch authorising that firm to remove the goods chargeable with duty upto Rs. 6000/- from time to time as required under Rule 154 of the Central Excise Rules. The petitioner's firm submitted form A.R. 3 in triplicate to the Central Excise authorities at Farrukhabad in respect of the removal of 117.35 maunds of tobacco purchased by Ram Swarup Ganga Sagar. The Excise authorities, then inspected the goods and permitted their removal on certificate C.T. 2. A permit in form T. P. 2 was also issued by the Excise authorities, on 23-10-1958. After this permit, goods were removed from the petitioner's warehouse on the bond of the consignee Chunni Lal Gyasi Lal and an endorsement to that effect was made in form T.R. 2. The purchaser Ram Swarup Ganga Sagar, got the tobacco loaded in a truck in the presence of an Excise Inspector. The tobacco was to be taken to Konch to Chunni Lal Gyasi Lal. One form A.R. 3 which had been submitted by the petitioner to the Excise authorities in triplicate was returned back to the petitioner by the said authorities. The form A.R. 3 was sent to Chunni Lal Gyasilal along with the tobacco, but the tobacco, it seems, never reached its destination, and therefore, the question of re-warehousing of the tobacco at Konch did not arise and consequently, the form A.R. 3 never came back to the petitioner. It, therefore, became impossible for the petitioner to re-submit the form A.R. 3 to the Excise authorities. By a letter dated 13-11-1958, the Deputy Superintendent, Central Excise, Farrukhabad, asked the petitioner to inform him about location of the tobacco. The petitioner made enquiries from Chunni Lal Gyasi Lal and learnt that the tobacco never reached Konch in the warehouse of Chunni Lal Gyasilal. Thereupon, the petitioner replied to the Deputy Superintendent by a letter dated 29-11-1958. By a letter dated 23-1-1959, the Central Excise authorities demanded duty amounting to Rs. 4,849.72 np. from the petitioner under Rule 156(B) of the Central Excise Rules, the petitioner replied that it was not liable to make any payment because the goods were removed on the bond of Chunni Lal Gyasilal and further that the petitioner was not responsible if those goods were not re-warehoused at Konch by Chunnilal Gyasilal. The Excise authorities continued to make the demand for the payment of duty and thereupon the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Collector, Central Excise Allahabad. The appeal was dismissed on 3-8-1959, for non-compliance of the provisions of Section 189 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878, which required the petitioner to deposit excise dues alongwith the appeal. In paragraph 14 of the petition, it is stated that the Excise authorities are taking coercive measures against the petitioner to realise the amount of duty and have withheld tobacco worth Rs. 10,000/- belonging to it and have told the petitioner that they would stop clearance of the tobacco warehoused by it.

(2.)The petitioner, therefore, challenges the order of the Excise authorities demanding excise duty from it and also the order passed by the Collector, Central Excise, dismissing its appeal. It is also prayed that the Collector, Central Excise, be ordered to decide the appeal on merits.
(3.)A counter affidavit has been filed by one Shri P. S. Anand, Superintendent, Central Excise, Farrukhabad. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.