Lalit Kumar Dipchand Runwal vs Union of India and others

Dharmadhikari, J.—Rule, returnable forthwith. Other side waives notice.

Heard both sides.

From the material placed on record, it appears that the crucial question viz. Whether the goods seized are manufactured ''Zarda'' within the contemplation of Entry 411(5) has not been considered by the appellate authority, though in the Memo of Appeal the said contention seems to have been raised. According to Shri Desai, the said contention was not specifically argued before the appellate authority and, therefore, was not considered. This may be so. But, in our view, since it is the grievance of the petitioner that he was not given a reasonable opportunity to put forward his case, in the ends of justice at least he should be given an opportunity to put forward his case in that behalf before the appellate authority. Hence the order passed by the appellate authority, dated 9.10.1986 is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the appellate authority for deciding the question as to whether the goods seized are manufactured ''Zarda'' within the contemplation of the said Entry read with Section 2f(i-a) of the Act.

The remand is subject to the condition that the petitioner shall deposit an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. one lakh) within a period of four months from today with the Collector of Central Excise, Pune, towards excise duty, This will be subject to the final decision of the appeal.

If the petitioner applies to the appellate authority for inspection of the documents seized from him, the appellate authority shall grant him such a permission. It is needless to say that after the inspection the petitioner will be entitled to make copies of the inspected documents.

Hence the Rule is made partly absolute with no order as to costs.

The appellate authority will be at liberty to remit back the case to the lower authorities, if it deems fit.