CAMBRIDGE WOOLLEN MILLS Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF C E

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN assessment memorandum was made against the petitioners to determine the excisfcxtuty payable by them in the month of January, 1984. On December 24,1986, a show cause notice was issued to them by the Assistant Collector, Custom and Central Excise (Annexure P-l) indicating that there had been evasion of the excise duty and that he would be adjudicating upon the same as also the possibility of imposing the penalty for the evasion. The petitioner, in response to the said notice, sent reply Annexure P. 2. In the year 1988, some yam of the petitioner was attached by the respondents. The petitioner approached this Court contending that when the matter did not yet been adjudicated upon, the recovery proceedings could not be started and the yarn could not be attached. Impressed by that argument, we had issued a notice of motion to the respondents.

(2.) MR. H. S. Brar, Senior Central Government Standing Counsel sought time to file reply to the same, but all the same was prepared to oppose the petition. According to him, the records disclosed that the yarn had been attached because the arrears were due against the petitioner arising from the assessment memorandum pertaining to the month of January, 1984. He highlighted Annexure P-3 wherefrom it is evident that a demand of Rs. 1,70,723,25 was made against the petitioner and the petitioner had issued three cheques in favour of the Department out of which only one cheque of Rs. 60,000/-was encashed and the remaining two cheques were dishonoured. This amount was demanded by the Superintendent, Central Excise from the petitioner intimating that the cheques had been dishonoured. The petitioner replied to that notice but without raising anything substantial. There all what was said was that the matter had to be adjudicated upon as was evident from Annexure P-2. The Superintendent, Central Excise finding the demand to be standing against the petitioner went on to execute the assessment memorandum and thereby caused the attachment.

(3.) MRS. Archana Wadhwa, advocate appearing for the petitioner has contended that the amount sought to be recovered under notice Annexure P-3 is the same amount which has been sought to be adjudicated upon vide Annexure P-l. Even if it is so, as long as the assessment memorandum stays, the respondents are entitled to recover the amount in question from the petitioner. As we read the notices, the question of penalty is of a paramount importance in notice Annexure P-l and it had to be based on the suggested evasion of duty. In any case, this matter can be properly thrashed upon before the Customs and Central Excise authorities. We at our end find the attachment as proper.