Collector Vs. Decent Dyeing Co.

Collector vs Decent Dyeing Co.

Disposition Petition dismissed Court Allahabad Decided Dec 07, 1989

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/480287

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/480287
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: K.C. Agarwal, A.C.J. and ;R.K. Gulati, J.
Decided On: Dec 07, 1989
Case Number: Civil Appeal Nos. 2151-52 (NM) 86
Subject: Excise
Disposition: Petition dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- - 4. We have gone through the writ petition as well as through the relevant rules of the Central Excise Rules.

Key legal issue: Excise
Outcome / disposition: Petition dismissed
Acts & sections: Constitution of India - Article 226; Central Excise Rule, 1944 - Rules 155 and 160

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Collector

Respondent

Decent Dyeing Co.

Legal References

Acts: Constitution of India - Article 226; Central Excise Rule, 1944 - Rules 155 and 160
Reported In: 1990(45)ELT235(All)

Excerpt

- - 4. we have gone through the writ petition as well as through the relevant rules of the central excise rules.order1. this writ petition under article 226 of the constitution has been filed by shri abdul hafeez for quashing the demand notices of duty in form :-(i) dd-2 no. 152747 dated 23-5-1968, amount rs. 2,941.20(ii) dd-2 no. 153252 dated 30-9-1970, amount rs. 2,679.40(iii) dd-2 no. 153253 dated 20-9-1970, amount rs. 3,006.20the total amount demanded from the petitioner was rs. 8,626.80 plus 10 per cent collection charges.2. the petitioner's observation is that without having given a show-cause notice before issuing the demand notices, the central excise authorities did not have the power to issue the demand notices.3. a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the central excise department justifying the demand on the ground that under rule 160 of the central excise rules the petitioner could not have removed the dutiable goods kept in the warehouse without the permission of the excise authorities and as the petitioner was guilty of having committed a breach of the said rule, the central excise authorities were entitled to recover the duty from the petitioner.4. we have gone through the writ petition as well as through the relevant rules of the central excise rules. we are unable to find out any rule which required giving an opportunity prior to issuance of demand notices. the operation of the rules 155 and 160 is automatic. as the petitioner did not obtain permission of the requisite authority before removing the tobacco, he was liable to pay the amount demanded from him.5. the writ petition has no merit and it is dismissed.

Full Judgment

ORDER

1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by Shri Abdul Hafeez for quashing the demand notices of duty in form :-

(i) DD-2 No. 152747 dated 23-5-1968, amount Rs. 2,941.20

(ii) DD-2 No. 153252 dated 30-9-1970, amount Rs. 2,679.40

(iii) DD-2 No. 153253 dated 20-9-1970, amount Rs. 3,006.20

The total amount demanded from the petitioner was Rs. 8,626.80 plus 10 per cent collection charges.

2. The petitioner's observation is that without having given a show-cause notice before issuing the demand notices, the Central Excise Authorities did not have the power to issue the demand notices.

3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Central Excise Department justifying the demand on the ground that under Rule 160 of the Central Excise Rules the petitioner could not have removed the dutiable goods kept in the warehouse without the permission of the Excise Authorities and as the petitioner was guilty of having committed a breach of the said rule, the Central Excise Authorities were entitled to recover the duty from the petitioner.

4. We have gone through the writ petition as well as through the relevant rules of the Central Excise Rules. We are unable to find out any rule which required giving an opportunity prior to issuance of demand notices. The operation of the Rules 155 and 160 is automatic. As the petitioner did not obtain permission of the requisite authority before removing the tobacco, he was liable to pay the amount demanded from him.

5. The writ petition has no merit and it is dismissed.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 1989 Same Parties Collector vs Decent Dyeing Co. Same Subject Excise Same Judge K.C. Agarwal, A.C.J. and ;R.K. Gulati, J. Acts & Sections Constitution of India - Article 226; Central Excise Rule, 194...

Excise