RAVINDRA AND CO Vs. UNION OF INDIA UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the communication dated 6-12-1990 from the Asstt. Collector, Central Excise (Annexure-15) as well as the communication dated 10-12-1990 issued by the Superintendent, Central Excise (Annexure-17).

(2.) The petitioner is a partnership firm. According to it, it is engaged in the sale and purchase of Tobacco under three brand names, namely "Assam Bengal Scented Khaini", "Hari Chhap Tobacco", and "Bandar Dholak Chhap Tobacco". In this writ petition, we are concerned with the latter two. The dispute is whether the Tobacco sold by the petitioner under the above brand names is a manufactured tobacco 6r is it unmanufactured tobacco? The petitioner says that under trade notice No. 136/1987, it was notified by the Central Excise Collector, Kanpur that " un-manufactured tobacco merely broken by beating and then sieved and packed in retail packets with or without brand names for consumption as chewing tobacco which may be commonly known in the market as Zarda would be appropriately classified under Heading No. 24.01 of the Schedule to the Central Excise and Tariff Act, 1985 as un-manufactured tobacco." In pursuance of this trade notice, the petitioner says that Asstt. Collector intimated to him through his letter dated 9-10-1990 that the tobacco sold by the petitioner under the aforesaid two brand names is un-manufactured in nature and is classifiable under subheading 2401. The petitioner says that accordingly, he was clearing the said goods without paying duty thereon. They also stopped taking out licences from the Excise Rules. While so, the petitioner says, on 12-6-1990, his goods which were being transported in a truck, were detained on the apprehension that the tobacco being transported is manufactured tobacco and that it had been cleared without paying duty. It also appears that samples of it were sent for analysis to Chemical Examiner. Pending those proceedings, the petitioner requested for release of the said goods. They were released on executing the appropriate bonds. A letter written by the Asstt. Collector, Central Excise Farukhabad addressed to the Superintendent, Central Excise Range Kayanganj, is also brought to our notice whereunder the Asstt. Collector advised the Superintendent to the following effect:

(3.) The petitioner's case is that the order dated 6-12-1990, has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. It is submitted that the issue of classification cannot be decided finally on the basis of discreet enquiries. Such an issue must be decided after notice to or in the presence of the petitioner, as the case may be. It is also submitted that the report of the Chemical Examiner, if any, has also not been communicated to the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner had no opportunity of showing cause against the said classification.