RAVINDRA AND CO Vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the manufacturer of chewing tobacco. A dispute arose whether duty is leviable on his product or not. A communication dated 6-12-1990 from the Asstt. Collector followed by a communication dated 10-12-1990 from the Superintendent, Central Excise was sent to the petitioner holding that the petitioner's product is dutiable. He filed writ petition No. 6 of 1991 for quashing the said communications. Pending the writ petition he was allowed to clear his goods without payment of duty but subject to the condition that he furnished security for the disputed tax (other than cash security or bank guarantee). Pursuant to the said interim order, the petitioner says, he ; omitted a sale deed by way of security for certain amount and later he was obliged to deposit certain Fixed Deposit Receipts by way of security. The writ petition was allowed by a Bench of this Court by its order dated 4-4-1991 on the ground that the said communications were inoperative being in violation of the principles of natural justice. It was observed that the authority should have afforded an opportunity to the petitioner to show cause and then to determine the question at issue. We are told that subsequent to that judgment the authority has issued a show cause notice and the matter is now pending.

(2.) While so, the petitioner applied to the authority to return the sale deed and the Fixed Deposit Receipts deposited by him pursuant to the order of this Court dated 3-1-1991 made in the said writ petition on the ground that this writ petition has since been allowed. The authority declined to do so whereupon he approached this Court by way of this writ petition.

(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the Standing Counsel for the Central Government. The petitioner is right in his submission that once his writ petition succeeds he is entitled to return of the sale deed and the Fixed Deposit Receipts deposited by him pursuant to the interlocutory order passed in his writ petition. Merely because a show cause notice has subsequently been issued it is no ground for withholding the said documents. It is obvious that if and when the authority decides afresh and makes the petitioner liable for duty he shall pay it in accordance with that order. But it cannot withhold the documents pending the decision.