Anshuman Singh, J.
1. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner carried on the business of manufacturing khandsari sugar under the licence issued under the U.P. Khandsari Sugar Manufacturers Licensing Order, 1967. In the year 1975-76 the petitioner was granted licence for one power crusher size 11' x 14' for manufacture of khandsari sugar in village Barbara, district Bijnor. It has been alleged by the petitioner that under the provisions of the U.P. Sugarcane Purchase Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the production of power crusher of a particular size has been given in schedule attached to the Act. It appears that the unit of the petitioner was inspected by the officers of the central excise department on 26-2-1976 when according to the stock register five bags was shown as existing balance but ten kattas of sugar cane and twelve bags containing khandsari sugar was being dried on platform and the same was not entered in the stock register. Since the excise authorities were of the view that the petitioner had been clandestinely removing the khand-sari sugar without paying central excise duty a show cause notice was issued to the petitioners by the Assistant Collector (Customs) as to why action under Rules 9, 52-A, 873 (sic) and 226 of the Central Excise Rules should not be taken. The petitioner filed its reply to the said show cause notice and the Collector, Central Excise after considering the reply of the petitioner imposed penalty of Rs. 250, under Rules 9 and 226 of the Central Excise Rules and also demanded excise duty on 1430.87 quintals of khandsari sugar. The petitioner being aggrieved against the said order preferred an appeal before the Appellate Collector, Central Excise, New Delhi. The appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected by the appellate authority by its order dated 30-9-1977. The petitioner feeling further aggrieved preferred revision before the Central Government and the Joint Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi dismissed the revision of the petitioner vide its order dated 1-9-1979. The petitioner feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid order has come to this court under article 226 of the Constitution of India.
2. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Learned Counsel for the petitioner urged that since the capacity of production of crusher of khandsari sugar has been fixed under the Act the excise authorities acted illegally in holding that the petitioner had crushed more sugar than the quantity prescribed under the schedule. Sri K.C. Sinha, Additional Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of Union of India contended that the capacity of the crusher have been fixed by the legislature for the purposes of levying sugar cane purchase tax and the same has nothing to do with the levying of central excise. Moreover, since all the authorities have recorded a finding that the goods found at the unit of the petitioner at the time of inspection were not entered in the books of account and cuttings were also found in the record of the petitioner the excise authorities were wholly justified in imposing the central excise duty. No other point has been pressed before me and after hearing the parties I am of the opinion that the petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.
3. In the result, the petition fails and is rejected. However, there will be noorder as to costs.