B SATYANARAYANA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that falls for consideration in this writ petition is whether the notice given to the petitioner demanding duty is barred by limitation under sub-section (2) of section 40 of the Central Excises and Salt Act.

(2.) The facts that given rise to this question may briefly be stated. The petitioner who is having tobacco business has his godowns for storing tobacco. It is stated that the Preventive and Intelligence Inspector visited the premises of the petitioner on 30th January, 1970 and also on 31st January, 1970 and weighed the stocks in the godowns. A panchanama was drawn. The Preventive and Intelligence Inspector issued a notice on 20-1-70 to the petitioner to give a statement, and his statement was recorded. Thereafter, on 17-9-71, the first respondent herein, namely, Superintendent of Central Excise, Warangal circle issued a show cause notice to which a reply was submitted by the petitioner on 21-9-71. Ultimately the Superintendent of Central Excise, Warangal by his order dated 19-10-71 demanded duty on 1306.5 Kgs. of I.A.C. whole leaf Tobacco and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 100. It is this order that is being impugned in this writ petition. It may also be mentioned here that the petitioner aggrieved by the order of the first respondent filed an appeal before the Deputy Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad, but the same was dismissed. He then filed a revision before the higher authorities, and in that too, he was unsuccessful.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the show cause notice issued on 17-9-71 is long after the period of limitation prescribed in section 40(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and as such, the impugned order demanding duty as well as imposing penalty is illegal.