KIRAN BALA SADHU Vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner carries on business under the trade name 'Mahakali Oil Mills' and owns an oil mill at No. 113, Belgachia Road, in the town of Calcutta. It is an admitted fact that mustard oil, as vegetable non-essential oil, was chargeable to Central Excise Duty, at the time material for the purposes of this Rule.

(2.) The petitioner was charged with removal of 366.7236 metric tonnes of mustard oil from her mill, without payment of excise duty, without cover of gate passes and without accounting for the same in the excise records, in contravention of Rules 9, 52A, 53 and 226 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and was asked to show cause why she should not be penalised therefor. The cause shown by the petitioner was not accepted by the respondent Assistant Collector. He found that the petitioner had contravened the provisions of Rules 9, 52A and 226 of the Central Excise Rules. He, therefore, held that the petitioner was liable to pay excise duty on 336.7236 metric tonnes of mustard oil amounting to Rs. 40431.28 paise and also liable to pay a penalty amounting to Rs. 250/-. I am told that the aforesaid adjudication order has been challenged by the petitioner and the matter is still subjudice. I, therefore, do not pronounce my views on the propriety or otherwise of the adjudication order.

(3.) Although, the adjudication of duty and penalty was challenged by the petitioner, she nevertheless paid the penalty and applied for instalments in payment of the duty imposed. It appears from a letter from a Superintendent of Central Excise (annexure 'C' to the petition) that the petitioner was allowed to pay the duty in the following instalments, namely :