BADRUL AMIN Vs. UNION OF INDIA UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in these two writ petitions are agriculturists and cultivate apart from other crops tobacco also. They even cure the tobacco. It is not disputed that the tobacco produced by the petitioners was an excisable commodity as an unmanufactured product during the years in question, namely, 1977-78 and 1978-79. In pursuance of recovery certificates issued in this behalf certain amount of excise duty was sought to be recovered from the petitioners and for that purpose necessary citations were issued in the month of March, 1984. By these writ petitions the recovery proceedings including the citations mentioned above have been, challenged.

(2.) The respondents in the writ petitions are represented by their Standing Counsel. No other private party is to be served with the notice of the writ petitions. Counter and rejoinder-affidavits have already been filed and we are of opinion that these are fit cases which may be finally disposed of at this very stage as contemplated by the second proviso to Rule 2 of Chapter XXII of the Rules of Court. We have accordingly heard counsel for the parties on the merits of these writ petitions.

(3.) It has been urged by counsel for the petitioners that since no notice within the period prescribed under Rule 10 of the Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), as they stood at the relevant time which is subsequently incorporated in Section 11-A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), was issued to the petitioners, the recovery of the amounts mentioned in the citations have become time-barred and consequently the respondents have no jurisdiction to recover the same.