G. RADHAKRISHNAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the proprietor of Raly Rubbers, a manufacturing unit of tread rubber at Aranmula. He has sought for a direction to quash Ext. P1 show cause notice by which he was called upon to show cause why a sum of Rs. 46,01,326.60 shall not be recovered by the Central Excise. He has also prayed for a direction to quash Ext. P4, the scheme of the advance rewards payable to the excise department officials at whose instance the duty evasion is detected.

(2.) ON 23 -7 -1996, the Superintendent of Central Excise, Cochin conducted a search of the factory. Statements were obtained from him as well as from the workers of the factory. Thereafter the impugned show cause notice was issued. It is contended that the statements were taken under threat and the search was made in violation of the provisions of Section 18 of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 and Section 165 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He has also contended that, in the meantime, the Collector of Excise has decided to issue advance rewards to all the concerned officers by his order dated 27 -2 -1987 amounting to Rs. 1,94,000/ -. Under this scheme, advance reward is paid to the officers as an incentive immediately on seizure or on issuing show cause notice. A percentage of anticipated imposition of duty as a result of the detection of the evasion of duty is paid as advance reward to the concerned officers. Since the duty to impose is already decided by the authorities of the department prior to the final assessment with reference to the amount of advance payment as reward, any order passed by them is tainted with pecuniary bias.

(3.) IT is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has in fact attended in the assessment proceedings. Hence he did not press the prayer for quashing the show cause notice.