THERMOKING Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition whereby the petitioner challanges the notice dated 28th of July 1992 issued by Shri Sidharth Kak, Collector Central Excise, New Delhi requiring to show cause why duty specified therein should not be demanded from it under the provisions of Rule 196 of the Central Excise Rules 1944 (for short 'the Rules') and under Section 9 (2) read with Section 11 (a) of the Central Excise Act and Salt Act 1944 (for short the 'Act') for the period 1988-89 and 1991-92, why seized goods valued at Rs. l,89,630.00 be not confiscated under Rules 226 and/or Rule 173 (o) (i) of the Rules; why penalty should not be imposed under Rules 173 (o) (i), 52 (a) 210 and 226 of the 'Rules', why land building and machinery used in connection with production storage, removal or disposal of excisable goods be not confiscated under Rule 173 (o)(ii) of the Rules, why security furnished by the petitioner under Rule 192 be not forfeited in accordance with the provisions of Rule 196, etc. The facts which lie in a short compass are as follows:

(2.) The petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of airconditioners, geysers, washing machines, heat convectors etc. The factory of the petitioner is located at A-24 Naraina Industrial Area, New Delhi. The petitioner obtained a Central Excise Licence dated 5th December 1988 for procuring the compressors at nil rate of duly under Central Excise Notification dated 1st March .1986, for use in the manufacture of water coolers subject to the condition that they will follow the procedure prescribed in Chapter 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. For availing the concession, the petitioner executed Central Excise Bonds jointly and severally with the Bank of India, Maya Puri, New Delhi. On the basis of the Intelligence report to the effect that the petitioner had diverted the compressors for the manufacture of airconditioners, the factory premises of the petitioner and its other premises were searched by the officers of Excise Department on 28th February 1992. During the course of the search on the said date, the officers seized certain goods pertaining to the petitioner under Section 110 of the Excise Act, 1962 as made applicable to the Central Excise matters by virtue of Central Excise Notification No. 68/63 dated 4th May 1963. The officers also seized documents which were regarded relevant. It was also allegedly revealed that no water coolers were manufactured by the petitioner for which.purpose the petitioner had obtained a Central Excise Licence and had procured compressors at nil rate of duty. As stated above, the petitioner was issued a Show-cause Notice on 28th July 1992. It is this notice which is impugned in the writ petition. The only contention of the petitioner is that officer issuing the Show-cause Notice did not have the authority to issue the same. In order to appreciate the contention of the petitioner, it would be necessary to note that Shri Sidharth kak who issued the notice was posted as Collector of Central Excise (Judicial) Delhi vide Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) Office Order No. 130/90 dated 13th August 1990.

(3.) According to Rule 2(iii) Collector is defined as under: "Collector" means: In the Union Territory of Delhi and the State of Haryana, the Collector of Central Excise, Delhi."