I ISMAIL KUTTY Vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE stay petition is for suspending the operation of the impugned order appealed against pending disposal of the appeal. Since we propose to dispose of the appeal itself today, the petition is dismissed.

(2.) The Central Excise Officers attached to the Headquarters Preventive, Cochin, seized gold ornaments weighing 80831300 gms. and one gold bar of foreign origin weighing 100 gms. totally valued at Rs. 24,54,990 on 30.10.1987 kept concealed in the licensed premises of the appellant at Kayamkulam, Kerala State. On 4.11.1987 the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Trivandrum, on a reasonable belief that the appellant has contravened the provisions of the Act suspended the licence of the appellant in exercise of his power under Section 50(1) of the Act. Since in terms of the proviso to Section 50(1) of the Act the licence cannot be suspended for a period exceeding 10 days unless the holder thereof has been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the proposed action. The Assistant Collector also called upon the appellant in his suspension order dated 4.11.1987 referred to above to show cause against the continuance of the suspension of the licence pending enquiry. Subsequently, after affording the appellant an opportunity of being heard, the Assistant Collector by his order dated 13.11.1987 extended the suspension of the appellant's licence under Sub-section 1 of Section 50 of the Act "until, further orders vacating this order, are issued". The appeal against the same by the appellant was rejected by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras, under the impugned order out of which the present appeal arises.

(3.) SHRI Bhatia, the learned Senior D.R., contended that the Assistant Collector is a competent authority to order suspension without notice for a period of 10 days and order further continuance of the suspension pending enquiry or trial after issue of a show cause notice under Section 50(1) of the Act. The learned Senior D.R. urged that the Assistant Collector is an authority competent to adjudicate and exercise the powers in terms of Section 50(1) of the Act and also placed reliance on the Notification of Government of India No. 4304 dated 2.12.1968 delegating the power on the Assistant Collector to suspend or cancel a licence or a certificate under Sections 50(1) and 5O(1A) of the Act by the Administrator. The learned Senior D.R. further urged that issuance of a show cause notice and adjudication proceedings have nothing to do with the exercise of a power by the Assistant Collector in ordering interim suspension or continuance of suspension under Section 50(1) of the Act. The learned Senior D.R. further submitted that there is no warrant in law for the contention that enquiry can be said to commence only after the issue of a show cause notice. Having regard to the scheme of the Act, the learned Senior D.R. urged, the Assistant Collector being a competent authority to grant licence has also been invested with powers to order suspension and cancellation of the licence under the relevant provisions of the Act.