AKHTAR ABBAS Vs. ASST COLLECTOR CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for a writ of certiorari to quash or set aside certain notices issued by the respondents for the recovery of excise duty payable under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter called the 'act) and also for a writ of mandamus Or other suitable writ, direction Or order requiring them not to give effect to those notices or to take other steps for fresh levies.

(2.) THE petitioner has been manufacturing what is called French Polish and carrying on business in the name and style of Nadra Chemical and Pharmaceutical Works, of which he is the sole proprietor. It is not now disputed before us that the French Polish manufactured by the petitioner is a clear liquid giving test for denatured ethyl alcohol leaving a non-volatile residue, which on test is found to contain resin and shellae. It does not contain any pigment or nitro-cellulose and leaves, when coated on a plate of glass and left for sometime a transparent, adherent tack free film.

(3.) ON 16th February, 1957, the Superintendent of Central Excise, Bhopal (respondent 2) sent to the petitioner a letter (Annexure A) to say that he was manufacturing varnish which was an excisable commodity under the Tariff Item 22-11 (i) of the First Schedule to the Act and that the manufactured goods could not be cleared from the factory without securing a licence in form L-4 and paying the duty on goods already cleared or sought to be cleared. The petitioner was also directed to supply to the officer deputed for the purpose the figures of production, issue and stock available in the manufactory. On 20th February, 1957, a letter was sent to the Station Master, Bhopal, instructing him not to book the French Polish manufactured by the petitioner unless he produced a gate pass showing payment of the excise duty. On 9th March, 1957 and 22nd March, 1957, the petitioner was reminded that he had to take out a licence in form L-4 (Annexures B and C ). In the meantime, on 19th March, 1957, a summons (Annexure D) under Section 14 of the Act was issued to the petitioner. On 6th April 1957, he was intimated that unless he complied with the requirements of the Act, the authorities would be compelled to take action against him under Section 9 thereof (Annexure G ). On 5th May, 1957, a notice of demand under Rule 9 (2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, was issued to him to ray Rs. 1,90,266/- as excise duty (Annexure H ). On 15th May, 1957, a notice was issued to him to show cause why a penalty should not be imposed upon him for contravention of Rule 9 (2) of (sic) Rules (Annexure J ). Yet another similar notice was issued to him for the alle ed removal of a stock of French Polish on 19th February, 1957, without payment of excise duty (Annexure K ).