N RIAZUR RAHIM Vs. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order passed by Kondaiah, J. in Writ Petition No. 4053 of 1969. The appellant is a dealer in tobacco. He was given notice by the Assistant Collector to show cause why 16 packages containing 941 kgs. of IAC Natu chewing tobacco should not be confiscated for transporting the same from Siruvella to Atmakur through one Chavidi Sivanna without a valid transport document and why he should not be punished for the same under Rule 32 (2)(b) of the Rules framed under the Central Excise Act. The appellant herein submitted an explanation. The Assistant Collector conducted an enquiry but was not satisfied with the explanation. Admittedly, the tobacco packages were not accompanied by a transport permit. The case of the appellant was that the sale note was taken away from him by the Excise Authorities. He had therefore to go back and take back the sale note and produce the same. He could produce it only the next day i.e. 10-10-1966. The Assistant Collector found that sale note thus produced late no doubt referred to 16 packages of tobacco, but the tobacco that was seized was of different form or variety from one noted in the sale note. Besides, the quantity as entered in the sale note did not tally with that actually transported. Whereas the tobacco seized weighed 241 kgs. that in the sale note was only of 880 kgs. weight. Not merely this, the consignee Venkateswara Rao according to sale note when questioned categorically denied that he had ever placed any order with the person whose tobacco was seized. He further stated that the tobacco seized was natu chewing variety which is generally grown in Parchoor and Inkollu areas. But from the parent sale notes relied on, it appeared that the tobacco originally came from Eluru and Gudivada ranges of Vijayawada division where only cheroot variety of tobacco is produced. It is on this material that the Assistant Collector came to the conclusion after considering the explanation given by the petitioner that it was a clear case of substitution and directed that the tobacco be confiscated. He also levied a fine of Rs. 600/-. On appeal, the Collector, after a consideration of the material on record, agreed with the conclusion reached by the Assistant Collector, but reduced the fine to Rs. 300/- and penalty to Rs. 100/-. In revision, the Government further reduced the fine and penalty to Rs. 150/- and Rs. 50/-respectively. The petitioner moved this Court by filing the Writ petition as the tobacco was directed to be confiscated which order was not modified by either the appellate authority or the revising authority. After consideration of the orders of the Assistant Collector and the Collector, Central Excise and also of the Central Government, the learned Judge came to the conclusion that the finding of the appellate authority that the petitioner had transported 941 Kgs. of natu chewing tobacco from Siruvella to Atmakur through one Chavidi Sivanna without a valid transport document was correct, and that it was supported by material on record. He also found that the petitioner was afforded reasonable opportunity and there was no denial of the principles of natural justice. That being the case he dismissed the writ petition.

(2.) Mr. Lakshmana Rao, the learned counsel for the appellant contends that the order of the revising authority is not a speaking order and that the Assistant Collector and the Collector did not consider his explanation while coming to the conclusions reached by them. It is said that cheroot tobacco is not different from IAC tobacco, that the difference in weight is due to the increase in weight on account of sprinkling of water during the period of transit and that the authorities did not pay any attention to his explanation which was clear and unequivocal and was complete answer to all the grounds taken against him. The question for consideration in this case firstly is whether there has been contravention of Rule 32 inasmuch as the petitioner who had transported the tobacco in question did not produce on the request of the officer forthwith the valid permit or certificate or sale note in relation thereto so that the said officer may verify whether the tobacco in question is different from that entered in the sale note. Contravention is obvious from the language of the rule. The explanation offered, however, cannot be wholly ignored especially when immediate production was rendered impossible by the circumstances beyond control. Yet the fact remains that the sale note produced however late cannot be connected with the goods seized. The authorities who were fully conversant with the nature and the variety of tobacco have come to a definite conclusion that the tobacco seized is different from that mentioned in the sale note. They have also come to the conclusion that there is difference in the weight besides. They, therefore, held that the tobacco seized was not supported by any valid sale note. Both the authorities whether original or appellate were at one on this point. They are fact finding authorities and they have come to this conclusion on the material on record. There is no reason why the conclusions reached by them should not be accepted. It will be seen that the Government while exercising the powers of revision though it proper only to modify the order relating to the penalty and fine. Much stress has been laid on the fact that the revising authority also ought to have considered the whole material on record and reached an independent conclusion in relation to the question raised. But we do not think that when the Government had agreed with the findings of both the authorities they should also write an elaborate judgement dealing with this aspect. In revision what they thought necessary was to modify only the order with regard to penalty and fine. That is why they have said that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, they thought it proper only to reduce the fine and penalty imposed. The learned counsel contends that inasmuch as reasons in relation to the conclusion reached as to the quality and quantity of the goods have not been given in the order of the Government, the order must be set aside. We do not agree with this contention. That apart, when both the authorities are at one on the question whether the tobacco seized is the same as covered by the sale note, we do not think that it is a case where we should exercise our extraordinary jurisdiction and quash the order of the Government on the simple ground that the revising authority did not make a detailed order. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the order passed by our learned brother. We accordingly dismiss this appeal.