Ashok Steel Chain Mfg. Co. vs Union of India (UOI) and Others

This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the orders passed by the authorities below and annexed to the petition at Exhibit A dated 26/31.10.1983, at Exhibit ''B'' dated 18.8.1984 and at Exhibit ''E'' dated 30.9.1985. The last order dated 30.9.1985 is the order passed by the Revisional Authority.

There is no dispute that the petitioners have exported part of the goods on 23rd December 1980 and remaining goods on 13.2.1981. According to the petitioners, they exported steel chains. The petitioners executed a bond in the form B-l for Rs. 24,000''- with a cash security of Rs. 1200/-. The said bond was accepted by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise (Refunds), Bombay and registered at Serial No. 594/80 on 18.12.1980. According to the petitioners, they produced the necessary documents with the concerned authorities evidencing the fact of actual export of steel chains. On 16th August 1983, the Superintendent of Central Excise (Refunds) Bond Section, Bombay, issued a show cause notice to the petitioners informing them that they have not submitted the proof of exportation in respect of the goods cleared without payment of duty under bond for shipment through Bombay under AR 4/ AR 4A Nos. shown therein. The Superintendent, therefore, requested the petitioners to submit the same within 10 days from the date of receipt of the said letter along with explanation for delay. The petitioners submitted reply along with the documents. They also made a mention therein that on the earlier occasion within time they have already furnished and produced all the documents to the concerned authorities yet, by way of abundant precaution they are submitting fresh set of the documents along with their reply. It is pertinent to note that all that was called upon by the Superintendent of Central Excise to the petitioner was to produce the documents which they had in fact, submitted. The Assistant Collector perused the reply and after hearing the petitioners by his order dated 26.10.1986 recorded his finding as under:

From the above facts, it is absolutely clear that M/s. Ashok Steel Chain Mfg. Co., Bombay cleared the consignment of electrical components involving C.Ex. duty Rs. 22062.39 under Bond No. M, 594/80 dt. 18.12.1980 and failed to submit the proof of exports within stipulated time. Thus they have contravened the provisions of Rule 13& 14-r/w Rule 12 of C.Ex. Rules 1944 and they are liable to pay the Central Excise duty at the appropriate rate as per the provisions of Rule 9A''(3) of the C.Ex. Rules, 1944.

The Assistant Collector called upon the petitioner to pay the Central Excise duty at the appropriate rate.

The petitioners aggrieved by this order, preferred an appeal to the Appellate Authority and the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Bombay, by his order dated 18th August 1984 rejected the same. Against this order of the Appellate Authority, the petitioners were under misconception that the 2nd appeal would lie to the Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal, West Regional Bench, Bombay. Accordingly, they tiled appeal to the said Tribunal. However, the said Tribunal vide its order dated 20.2.1985 dismissed the appeal on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the same. The petitioners thereafter preferred Revision Application to the Government of India on 4.4.1985. Alongwith this revision application, the petitioners also filed an application for condonation of delay setting out all these grounds. There was delay of about 1 1/2 months. The Revisional Authority refused to condone the delay and consequently rejected the Revision Application on the ground that the same is barred by limitation. It is this order which is sought to be challenged by the petitioners in this writ petition.

Mr. Shah, the learned Counsel appearing in support of this petition firstly urged that there is no indication whatsoever in the revisional order as to whether the application made by the petitioners for condonation of delay was considered by the revisional Authority. From the body of the order, learned Counsel contends, it does not appear that the fact of such an application for condonation of delay having been made was ever known to the revisional authority. In the circumstances, Counsel contends, that the impugned orders suffer from non-application of mind. Even on merits also, Counsel submits, that orders passed by the Appellate Authority as well as by the Assistant Collector are illegal and contrary to law. In order to substantiate this submission, the learned Counsel urged that in the show cause notice, the -petitioners were called upon to produce all the documents concerning export of goods. Accordingly documents were filed along with reply to the show cause, yet the authorities erroneously held that the petitioners are guilty of non-filing of the documents in time. He also urged that apart from the fact that such documents were filed along with the reply to the show cause notice, these documents were already filed within time before the concerned authority and this fact was never disputed at the hearing. The Learned Counsel also drew my attention to the order of the Assistant Collector in which reference of this fact is made. If this be so, Counsel contends, that the orders passed by the Assistant Collector as well as by the Appellate Collector are illegal and must be quashed and set aside.

Ordinarily, after condoning the delay I would have sent the matter back to the Revisional Authority for considering the case on merits. Respondents although served (sic ?) and represented by the Counsel did not choose to file any return. I see no reason why the statements made on oath by the petitioners should be discarded. On merits, I find that the contention of Shri Shah is unassailable on any score. The only ground on which the petitioners were called upon to pay the Central Excise duty was of ''non-submitting documents, but the fact that such documents were submitted is itself clear from the order of the Assistant Collector. In these circumstances, impugned orders passed by Assistant Collector and on appeal confirmed by the Collector (Appeals) are illegal and must be quashed and set aside.

In the result, the writ petition succeeds. Rule made absolute in terms of prayer (a).

No order as to costs.