GUPTA TOBACCO CO Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sixty bags of tobacco dustweighing 79 maunds 20 seers were deposited by the petitioner in hisprivate landed warehouse vide warehouse entry' No. 15/56 dated 2 3/05/1956. It appears that subsequently a representative sample wasdrawn from the said lot No. 15 and on analysis by Chemical Examinerfound to contain 73.4 per cent ash and 32.8 per cent tobacco. Fromthis the Central Excise authorities deduce that the consignment originally warehoused was substituted by an equal quantity of adulterated inferior tobacco without payment of duty. A notice was consequently issuedto the petitioner on 2 8/01/1961, requiring him to show causewhy the initial demand of an amount of Rs. 3263.98 np. originally madeunder rule 160 of the Central Excise, 1944, be not confirmed. The petitioner by letter dated 9th February, Rules 1961, requested the AssistantCollector, Central Excise Division, Ambala, to make certain records available to him for inspection to enable him to file reply to the show causenotice. One of the items, the inspection whereof was sought, related toan application of the petitioner for destruction of the lot originally warehoused. The petitioner by the same letter also asked the Assistant Collector to inform him about "the basis and material on which the Department rely and which establishes the allegation of substitution againstme". A reply was sent by Shri Darshan Singh, Superintendent, dated13th/ 22/03/1961, in which it was stated-

(2.) One of the objections taken 'by Mr. Shankar, the learnedcounsel tor the respondents, .is that the petitioner has failed to availhimself of the alternate remedy .and the petition should, therefore, berejected on this short ground. His argument is that the petitioner should have deposited the amount of penalty and duty so that his appealcould be disposed of on merits. The learned counsel for the petitioner,on the other hand, argued that the, petitioner is a poor man and couldnot afford to pay the amount with the"result that the alternate remedywas not adequate.

(3.) Existence of an altennate remedy is only one of the factors tobe taken into consideration by the Courts while deciding whether or' notthey should exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitation.It is not disputed that the existence of an alternate remedy doss notbar the Jurisdiction of the Court to give relief. Having regard to thecircumstances of this case, particularly the circumstance that the decision of the Superintendent, Central Excuse, has been arrived at in violation of the demands of natural justice, I am not inclined to entertainthe preliminary objection on behalf of the respondents. It, therefore,takes me to the question whether 'the rules of natural Justice have beenviolated ? Mr. Yogeshwar Dayal has emphasised the following circumstances in support of his plea -