- (1.) Heard Counsel for the parties.
(2.) By this petition, the petitioners seek quashing of the impugned demand. Learned Counsel for the petitioners says that no order giving rise to the impugned demand was ever served upon them by the respondents and, therefore, the petitioners are not aware as to which type of demand has been raised.
(3.) In Para 1 (d) of the counter affidavit, it is averred that Shri Cheddi Lal (Petitioner No. 1) had cultivated, 1.98 acres in five plots during the first crop year 1975-76, which was registered on the survey book on 5-12-1975, in survey book No. 0031 at Pages 6 and 7 against SI. No. 2/6. It is added that at the time of taking annual return on 26-5-1976, a quantity of 504 G (sic) leaf, 150 kg. stems and 186 kg, dust was duly verified by the Inspector of Central Excise, Karvi, which was acknowledged by the curers on survey. It is further averred that the DDs after its acknowledgement by the cursers on the counterfoils, were delivered to the curers under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for depositing the amount of duty amounting to Rs. 2,520/and Rs. 780/- respectively with the S.B.I. Karvi, which the curers failed to deposit, and then the impugned recovery proceedings were initiated against the petitioners.;