LAWS(KAR)-1962-8-28

INDIA SUGARS AND REFINERIES LTD Vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE BANGALORE

Decided On August 10, 1962
INDIA SUGARS AND REFINERIES LTD. Appellant
V/S
COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BANGALORE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are connected petitions. The same petitioner has filed all these petitions. In these petitions, the petitioner complains that the penalty imposed on it by the Collector of Central Excise as per his Order, dated 13-4-1959, which is impugned in the present petitions, is not authorised by law and, therefore, it is an illegal levy.

(2.) The material facts are as follows :- The petitioner is a manufacturer of sugar in Hospet in Bellary District. He was storing sugar in his factory premises. On 15-5-1957, the petitioner issued out of its factory after paying the duty due on 250 bags of sugar. These 250 bags were issued in five different consignments. For each one of the consignments, a separate gate pass was issued. The sugar was issued in the presence of the official belonging to the Central Excise Department. That official had noted the time of the issue in the petitioner's account as well as in the gate passes. Admittedly, the sugar in question was issued from the godown sometime prior to 5 p.m. on that date. The petitioner's factory has a big compound. It is admitted that the distance between the factory premises and the outer gate is about two furlongs. When the lorries and the carts that were carrying the sugar in question went near the main gate, they were stopped by the Central Excise officials for checking. After checking they were allowed to go out of the main gate. But by the time they were allowed to go out of the main gate, it was past 5 p.m. The question for consideration is, whether in view of the fact that those vehicles had left the main gate after 5 p.m., the petitioner had contravened the provisions of Rule 224(2) of the Central Excise Rules. At this stage, it is necessary to mention that 15-5-1957 was the date on which the budget had to be presented to the Parliament.

(3.) Rule 224(2) says :