GEMINI DISTILLERIES P LIMITED SATAMRAI VILLAGE R R DIST Vs. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT REVENUE EXCISE DEPT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the D2 licence holder to manufacture Indian Made Foreign Liquor. The petitioner has received a show-cause notice issued by the 2nd respondent, dated 7-10-1993, alleging violation' of conditions of licence and the Rules 8 and 37 of A.P.Distillery Rules, 1970, (for short, 'the Rules'), and calling upon the petitioner to show cause why the D2 licence should not be cancelled under Section 31(l)(b) of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968 (for short, 'the Act'). The petitioner has submitted his explanation dated 13-10-93 stating that he had not violated the relevant rules or the conditions of the licence. The petitioner also filed an application for compounding the offence as per Section 47 of the Act. The 2nd respondent, by an order dated 15-11-1993, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, found that the petitioner has violated the licence conditions by resorting to additions to the plant and machinery, without the prior permission of the Commissioner of Excise under Rule 37 of the Rules. The application for compounding of the offence was rejected taking into consideration the nature of latches committed by the petitioner. It was therefore, ordered that the entire deposit of Rs.50,000/- in the form of cash and bank guarantee of Rs.4,50,000/- made by the licensee, under Rule 4(a) & (b) of the Rules, be forfeited to the Government under Rule 4(c) of the Rules, as the licensee has violated the conditions of licence. The petitioner was also directed to dismantle the two bottling lines, two steel tanks, a compound wall, shed on western side and water tank keeping the original structure as per the approved plan of the unit. The petitioner was also directed to pay the securities and provide bank guarantees afresh, as provided under Rule 4(a) & (b) of the Rules, within one week thereafter.

(2.) The petitioner carried the matter in revision before the 1st respondent, who confirmed the order of the 2nd respondent, by an order dated 5-11-1994. However, instead of forfeiture of Rs.5,00,000/-, a penalty of Rs.3,00,000/- has been levied. With that modification the revision petition was dismissed. This order is under challenge in this writ petition.

(3.) It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the violations being minor in nature and unrelated to the payment of excise duty, the respondents ought not have forfeited the deposit and bank guarantee nor levied any penalty on the petitioner. Learned Counsel, in support of his contention, has taken us through the conditions of licence and the relevant provisions of the Rules.