ADABALA SESHAYYA Vs. ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for the issue of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the order of the 1st respondent as per Adjudication Order No. 16/71 dated 6-4-1971 as confirmed by the 2nd respondent in D.R. Dis No. V/4/1/2/115/71 dated 6-10-1971 and modified by the 3rd respondent in his order No. 760/73 dated 29-5-1973.

(2.) The petitioner is a resident of Baduguvanilanka, in Amalapuram Taluk, East Godavari District and is a licensed dealer in tobacco. He transported a tobacco consignment of A.I.C. Tobacco under a sale note No. 34 dated 3-7-1969 by a tempo and the time of commencement of transport was noted as 9 P.M. on 3-7-1969. The goods had to be transported to one M. Venkatarao of Samalkot which is at a distance of 37 miles from the petitioner's village. It is the case of the petitioner that the tempo by which the consignment was transported, developed delco trouble and the driver had to replace the delco set at Dowlaiswaram and hence the vehicle could reach the destination only at 8.00 A.M. on 4-7-1969. The Inspector of the respondent's department checked the vehicle and seized the vehicle and the goods saying that there was delay in transit inasmuch as the vehicle should reach the destination at dawn time and it was late by 2 hours. The goods were later released on deposit of cash. A show cause notice was issued, the petitioner gave his reply and there was an adjudication and the 1st respondent passed the order dated 6-4-1971 confiscating the tobacco, i.e. its value and a penalty of Rs. 250/-. Thereupon the owner of the tempo also was prosecuted and the vehicle was confiscated Then appeals were preferred to the 2nd respondent who by his order dated 6-10-1971 dismissed the petitioner's appeal. The petitioner preferred a revision to the 3rd respondent, who while holding that there was at misuse of the sale note, reduced the penalty to Rs. 50/- but rejected the revision in other respects.

(3.) In this Writ Petition the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the authorities have held that there was no misuse of the sale note. The order of the 3rd respondent dated 29-5-1973 is to the following effect.