( 1 ) THE defendants are the appellants. O. S. No. 130 of 1980 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Guntur was filed by the plaintiff seeking a declaration that the order in Revision of the 1st defendant dated 14-6-1978 confirming the levying of duty of Rs. 34,200. 00 is illegal and for refund of Rs. 1,750. 00 to the plaintiff being the penalties collected from the plaintiff. For the sake of convenience the parties will be referred to in this appeal as per their status in the suit.

( 2 ) THE plaint averments are set out as hereunder: The plaintiff is a company carrying on business in tobacco under a valid central excise licence obtained by the plaintiff. On 6-5-1972 one Ryot Grower Inturi Venkateswarlu of Suravarapalli near Chilakaluripet, Guntur District, sent 38 packages of tobacco scrap weighing 3,359 Kg. under cover of his T. P. 3 No. 307456 dated 5-5-1972 and a second consignment of 14 packages of tobacco V. F. C Leaf weighing 1,049 Kg. , was sent by one Gokanakonda Ramalingaswamy of Ramakur of Addanki Mandal, Prakasam District under his T. P. 3. No. 22775 dated 5-5-1972 to the plaintiffs warehouse at Guntur and both the consignments were received at about 7-00 a. m. on 6-6-1972 at the plaintiff s warehouse and they were produced before the concerned excise authority (Sector Officer) and duly check-weighed by him for the first warehousing and duly approved and signed by the Sector Officer in token of duly warehousing the said consignments on 8-5-1972. The plaintiff had given the said tobacco for processing evidenced by Part II Warehouse Register of the plaintiff. The plaintiff noticed some corrections on the T. P. 3 Form No. 307456 dated 5-6-1972 and as a bona fide trader he reported the same to the Sector Officer who initialled the warehouse registers and checked the aforesaid 38 packages of tobacco. He also found corrections and scorings in the said T. P. 3 Form and they were duly attested by the curer Inturi Venkateswarlu by his initials. On the date of check by the Excise Officer he also found the said attestation of the curer on the corrections and scorings and rightly as a prudent officer directed the plaintiff to re-warehouse the consignment in his godown in the regular discharge of his duties. Thus the plaintiff did warehouse the two consignments referred to in Para 3, 38 and 14 packages respectively and made appropriate entries in the warehouse registers duly maintained by the plaintiff in the regular course of his business under valid certificates of the Central Excise Officer. After the aforementioned validation and approval by the Check Officer, the untenable charges were levelled against the plaintiff in an illegal and uncharitable manner. The allegation against the plaintiff is that he received the above two consignments, totalling 52 packages (4408 Kg.) under the said invalid T. P. 3s in lorry APK. 798 on 6-5-1972, that by another lorry APG 2115 the plaintiff received 52 packages (4550 Kgs.) net of tobacco into his warehouse without any transport document on the same day which consignment was not warehoused and accounted for by the plaintiff and that on 22-4-1972 the plaintiff received 40 packages weighing 4000 Kgs. , net tobacco without any transport document in lorry APK 798 into his warehouse but he did neither warehouse nor account for the said stock. It is the contention of the plaintiff that these allegations are based on the wrong entries on the trip sheets, way bills etc. , made by uneducated drivers in lorry APK 798 on 6-5-1972 at the instance of the curer or the brokers and also mainly due to the fact that the 2nd defendant miserably failed to ascertain or understand the correct crucial facts of the case and what actually happened was not taken note of by the Central Excise Authorities who ought to have seen that the plaintiff received 52 packages of tobacco under the said 2 T. P. 3s only in Lorry No. A. P. G. 2115 (trip sheet 43 dated 5-5-1972) into his warehouse on 6-5-1972 wh