AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sukhdev Singh Kang, J.—M/s. Rajaram Corn Products (Punjab) Private Limited, the petitioner in this case is engaged in the manufacture of Maize Starch, Dextrine including Modified Starches, Liquid Glucose and other by-products. It has obtained a licence under Rule 173-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (for short ''the Rules''). Under Rule 173-C the petitioner-company is required to file price lists of goods manufactured by it which are assessable to excise duty. The assessment is made in accordance with Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter to be referred as ''the Act''). The petitioner felt practical difficulties in filing price lists for every consignment of goods cleared from the bonded warehouse maintained by the petitioner-company, within the precincts of its establishment. The prices of Glucose one of the Items manufactured by the petitioner fluctuated heavily. The petitioner filed an application on August 6,1980 requesting the Collector of Central Excise to grant exemption from filing the price lists under Rule 173-C of the Rules. This application was allowed by the Collector vide order dated 11-8-1980. The petitioner was allowed "to declare the price of the goods, namely, Glucose, falling under Item No.l-E of the Central Excise Tariff transacted by the petitioner for the particular wholesale consignment on the gate pass and to determine the duty payable on such goods intended to be removed on the basis of the said declared price".
It is not necessary to refer to detailed facts and happenings. It will suffice to mention that Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Chandigarh, issued a show cause notice dated 20-12-1988 to the petitioner-company stating ''inter alia'' that the petitionercompany has been exempted from filing the price lists in respect of Liquid Glucose by the Collector, Central Excise, Chandigarh by virtue of powers vested in him under Sub-rule (11) of Rule 173-C of the Rules on account of frequent fluctuation in the market price of such goods. The case for exemption for filing the price lists of Liquid Glucose had been reviewed by the proper officer and it was found that there was no much frequent fluctuations in the market price of Liquid Clucose and that the nature of goods manufactured by the petitioner-company was not such where the exemption from filing price lists could be allowed to be continued and that it was proposed to withdraw the exemption granted under the Rules. The petitioner-company was thereby called upon to show cause to the Collector aforementioned, within ten days from the issue of this notice as to why the exemption from filing the price lists in respect of Liquid Glucose should not be withdrawn. The petitioner-company was offered an opportunity to appear before the Collector in person on 4-1-1989 at 3.00 P.M. for personal hearing, if they so desired.
The petitioner-company through its counsel Shri A.C. Jain, Advocate, New Delhi, sent a communication pleading, amongst other things, that the factual contentions in the show cause notice were denied. However, the learned counsel was going out of station and had to return on 3-1-1989 and after that he would submit a suitable reply. He also submitted that he would make a request to the Department to disclose to him the basis of show cause notice along with the report, if any. It was urged that the petitioner-company had been given only ten days time for replying to the show cause notice. It was the Departmental practice to give not less than 30 days time for purpose of reply and there were instructions of the Court to this effect. He prayed that atleast one month''s time should be granted to the petitioner to file a detailed reply.
The prayer on behalf of the petitioner-company was not accepted and the Collector on 18-1-1989 passed the orders (Annexure P-10) withdrawing exemption granted to the petitioner under Sub-rule (11) of Rule 173-C of the Central Excise Rules. It has been argued by Shri Ashok Bhan Senior Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner that the notice dated 20-12-1988 (copy Annexure P-8) issued by the Collector, was vitiated because only 10 days time had been granted to the petitioner-company for replying to show cause notice, in complete and flagrant violation of the instructions dated 1-9-1978, issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs requiring the authorities to allow the parties one month''s time for replying to show cause notices in Central Excise cases. The learned counsel has brought to our notice these instructions. The relevant portion thereof reads as under : -
"2. It has been represented to the Minister of State that the period of 14 days is not adequate and that it still results in increasing unnecessary work for the parties in coming up for extension.
The matter has been reconsidered and it has been decided now that parties should be allowed one month''s time for replying to show cause notices in Central Excise cases.
4 ...
Instructions contained in the Board''s letter referred to in para 1 above and para 11 of the Adjudication Manual and the form of show cause notice prescribed in Appendix 1, ibid should be treated as modified to the above extent."
Shri R.S. Chahar, learned counsel for the respondents has fairly conceded that the above quoted instructions had been issued by the Board and they were binding on the Collector. The Collector through his show cause notice (copy Annexure P-8) dated 20-12-1988 had granted only 10 days time to the petitioner to file the reply. Even on the explicit request of the petitioner''s counsel the time was not extended. The Collector rather passed the impugned order (copy Annexure P-10) withdrawing the exemption granted to the petitioner. The show cause notice allowing only ten days time to file reply and the consequent order dated 18-1-1989 passed by the Collector are vitiated. We allow the writ petition and quash notice dated 20-12-1988 (Annexure P-8) and the order dated 18-1-1989 (Annexure P-10), with no order as to costs. The authorities shall, however, be at liberty to proceed in the matter in accordance with law.