CHATURBHAI M PATEL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was a wholesale and retail dealer in tobacco at Banaras and also owned a private bonded warehouse for tobacco and held licences for the same. In this petition he challenges the legality of certain orders passed by the Collector of Excise, Allahabad, which on appeal were confirmed and revisions against those orders were dismissed by the Central Government. The petitioner's warehouse was checked by Inspector Das who on finding some irregularity sealed the warehouse on December 8, 1953, and subsequently took possession of all the registers and stock cards. On December 22, 1953, 111/2 bags of kandi i.e. "stems of tobacco", which were found in the petitioner's warehouse, were removed from the warehouse by the Inspector and stored in some other place. Against those orders the petitioner made certain representations to the Collector and some correspondence passed. On June 15, 1954, the Collector, Central Excise, issued a notice to the petitioner to show cause why a penalty should not be imposed on him for the contravention of Rules 151(c) and 226 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and why the bags of kandi should not be confiscated. The petitioner showed cause, the Collector heard the petitioner who had also filed written arguments. Finding the charges against the petitioner proved, the Collector ordered confiscation of the bags of kindi, imposed a fine of Rs. 150 and the duty leviable thereon in lieu of confiscation. He further imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,000 under Rules 151(C) and 226 of the Central Excise Rules. The appeal taken to the Central Board of Revenue was dismissed as the petitioner refused to deposit the penalty of Rs. 2,000 and a revision to the Central Board of Revenue was also dismissed for the same reason. This is one of the orders which is challenged by the petitioner.

(2.) On July 29, 1954, the Collector called upon the petitioner to produce another surety as the previous surety Mohammad Satar was not prepared to act as such. The petitioner states that he thereupon furnished two bonds in Forms B-4 and B-5 for Rs. 7,000 and Rs. 10,000 respectively. As there was a sum of Rs. 15,263-8-0 due from him (the petitioner) as Excise duty, 373 Mds. of tobacco were attached by the Excise Department and sold by auction for Rs. 6,878-5-0 thus leaving a balance of Rs. 8,385-3-0. As the Department made demands for the recovery of this balance of duty the petitioner filed a civil suit in the Court of the First Additional Civil Judge, Banaras, who issued an ad-interim injunction against the Department restraining it to recover the amount. On January 25, 1956, the Superintendent of Excise called upon the petitioner to deposit a cash security of Rs. 10,000 otherwise his licence would be treated as cancelled under R. 181 (1) of the Central Excise Rules. The petitioner demurred to this and as the outstanding amount of excise duty was not paid the Deputy Collector ordered on February 13,1956, that till the deposit was made the petitioner's licence shall remain inoperative. The petitioner took an appeal against this order to the Central Board of Revenue which was dismissed. The petitioner also filed a petition under Art. 226 in the Punjab High Court which was also dismissed and a revision against the order of the Deputy Collector making the licence inoperative was dismissed by the Central Board of Revenue on December 20, 1956. This is the second order which is challenged.

(3.) The present petition was filed on January 21, 1957, in which the petitioner prayed (1) that the provisions of Ss. 6, 8, 9 and 10 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, Act 1 of 1944 (which for the sake of convenience will hereinafter be termed the Act) and the Rr. 140 to 148, 150, 171 to 181, 215 and 226 of the Central Excise Rules made under the Act be declared ultra vires and to issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ to quash the orders passed by the Collector as confirmed on appeal and revision by the Central Board of Revenue and the Central Government respectively. These orders have already been referred to; (2) for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere with the fundamental rights of the petitioner to carry on trade in tobacco or to store tobacco; (3) directing the respondents to return the goods confiscated by them.