DEVI TEXTILES Vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above writ petition had been filed for a writ of certiorari to call for and quash the proceedings of the first respondent in Ref. C. No. V/19/15/17/74, dated 24-2-1977 which was confirmed by the second respondent in his proceedings dated 4-3-1980 and in turn modified by the third respondent in his proceedings dated 17-12-1984 rejecting the claim of the petitioner challenging the demand made of the duty and penalty in the following circumstances.

(2.) THE petitioner was a firm of partners carrying on business at Nos. 142 and 143, Pension Lines Road, Gugai, Salem. THE Central Excise Officers appear to have inspected the place of business on 9-11-1974 and found that 16 powerlooms were installed in the premises and the actual manufacturing process was going on, manufacturing cotton furnishing fabrics in about 12 of the said powerlooms. THE petitioner appears to have not taken any central excise licence for the manufacture of cotton furnishing fabrics on power-looms in the said premises. Consequently, in the presence of witnesses, the cotton furnishing fabrics on 12 looms as also the other pieces found in the premises, already manufactured, were seized. Various account books were said to have been seized. On a verification of the said account books, the authorities noticed that during the period from 1-2-1972 to 9-11-1974, the petitioner firm has manufactured and removed without payment of duty about 88, 255. 75 meters of cotton furnishing fabrics valued at Rs 8, 13, 811.45 and that the excise duty payable thereof was Rs. 1, 22, 071.72 besides handloom cess to the tune of Rs.2, 028. 97. THE Managing Partner of the petitioner-firm by name Smt. Janaki appears to have given a statement the next day, i.e., 10-11-1974 admitting that the looms have been installed on rental basis and that while initially art furnishing fabrics were being manufactured on the said power-looms, subsequently, with effect from 1-2-1972, cotton furnishing fabrics were being manufactured on the said power-looms but that no licence had been obtained and no duty had been paid on such cotton furnishing fabrics manufactured and removed. At the request of the petitioners, the seized fabrics were said to have been released to the petitioner on their furnishing a bond after they had paid the duty thereof.

(3.) AGGRIEVED, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Central Board of Excise and Customs which by its order dated 4-3-1980 rejected the appeal. Thereupon, the petitioners filed a revision to the Government of India and the revision stood transferred to the third respondent Tribunal by virtue of Section 35P of the Central Excises and Salt Act, to be disposed of as an appeal.