The principles of natural justice require that an administrative tribunal give an opportunity to the party concerned to present his case on any facts collected by the authority before taking such facts into consideration in its decision.

The petitioner is a manufacture of plywood, block board and such other plywood products. They have a factory at Chota Hapjan, Tinsukia, Assam. They manufacture different qualities of block boards in their factory and the same had been graded differentially for the purposes of imposing excise duty. Different brand names such as Maharaja, Maruti, Rose, Swati, Ruby, Lotus had been given by the petitioner after grading them according to quality in order of gradation. Maharaja grade is the highest grade of block board and the brand name of Rose is for the III grade of plywood/block board and Ruby brand is the IV grade of plywood/block board. It appears that on 11th February, 1990 the petitioners dispatched 700 pieces of commercial plywood of various brands and sizes under Gate Pass No. 1456, Challan No.326 through the Bajrangbali Roadways vide truck No. UTM 9596. Along with the aforesaid consignment a bill for Rs.67,415/- being the price of the goods was also forwarded. According to the brand and the quality of the goods the excise duty was paid by the petitioners to the Excise Authority on clearance of the goods from the factory gate. The price list was submitted and the same was approved and thereafter the goods were dispatched. Thereafter on 14.2.90 on enroute the goods were seized at Dhubri by the Excise Authority on the ground that the goods were being clandestinely manufactured and removed and secondly the qualities of the goods were different than the quality mentioned in the gate pass. On these two grounds the authorities issued a show cause notice to the petitioners on 10th August, 1990 alleging that expert opinion was taken from M/s Dhubri Plywood in the matter by the authorities. According to the said expert opinion the goods contained in the said truck were of superior quality and they do not possess any defects of inferior grade of products. The respondents replied to the same and submitted that there was no clandestine removal of the goods. On the contrary all the goods were properly graded and proper excise duties were paid. It was also submitted by the petitioners that the labourers may have by mistake stamped 'Swati brand' on the products of 'Rose brand'. That only related to 7 pieces of block board. There was nothing irregular and the said goods should be released forthwith. In spite of that the Excise Authorities did not release the goods and on the contrary held an adjudication proceeding and passed an order confiscating the goods and imposing fine of Rs.l lac by an order dated 14th November, 1990. From the said order it appears that the quantity declared by the petitioners as to 700 pieces were accepted to be true. The petitioners had declared that there were28 pieces of Maharaja brand block boards and 672 pieces of grade III Rose brand. However, on verification it was found that 28 pieces of Maharaja brand was correct whereas instead of 672 of Rose brand there were 665 Rose brand and 7 pieces of Swati brand. The case of the petitioners was that Swati brand was mistakenly stamped by the labourers on the products of Rose brand. In any event the Excise Authorities have not lost any excise duty by this mistaken stamping, because excise duty is more for Rose brand than the excise duty payable on Swati brand. The only discrepancy it appears is regarding 7 pieces of Swati brand, otherwise the gradation of the goods according to the petitioners was correctly done and there as no evasion of excise duty in the matter.

2. Mr. Choudhury on behalf of the Department submits that the petitioners should have availed of the alternative remedy available to them and should have appealed against the said order of the appropriate authority. Instead of doing that they have come before this Court. Secondly Mr. Choudhury's argument is that expert opinion was taken and on the basis of the said expert opinion the adjudicating authorities passed an appropriate order of imposition of penalty and fine.

3. I have carefully considered the sub

Click Here to Read the rest of this document