Ravindra and Company vs Union of India (UOI) and Others

On 19-7-1986, tobacco, which, according to the petitioner, was hukka tobacco, was seized by respondent 3, i.e. Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Gauhati. Since the tobacco has not been released despite requests made by the petitioner, the present writ petition has been filed for Mandamus directing the respondents to release the same as according to the petitioner no excise duty was leviable on hukka tobacco.

A counter-affidavit and thereafter a supplementary counter-affidavit have been filed on behalf of respondents I and 2, stating, amongst others, that it was not hukka tobacco, but chewing tobacco, and, as such, it was leviable.

We are not required to go into this controversy at this stage of the proceedings. We consider it appropriate that the authority, whosoever may be entitled to look into this controversy, may do so, preferably within three months from the presentation of a certified copy of this order.

Subject to the above, the writ petition is disposed.