1. The facts of this case are more or less fully set out in the impugned order dated August 7, 1956 and I will therefore not set out any further facts in this judgment. In my opinion the impugned order dated August 12, 1956 must be quashed. The notice to show cause dated September 20, 1954 addressed by the Collector of Central Excise to the Manager, Makaibari Tea Estate stated that—
“Whereas it appears that the Manager, Makaibari Tea Estate has contravened Rules 9(1) and 52(A) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 in as much as 4 tea chests (S1. No. 37-40) containing 300 lbs. of tea were surreptitiously removed from Makaibari Tea Estate on 23rd April, 1954, under the cover of Gate Pass No. 209 of 1954 and invoice No. L.C 6 of 1954 against which 14 tea chests (Sl. No. 37-50) were previously removed from Makaibari Tea Estate on 21st April, 1954, the said Manager, Makaibari Tea Estate is hereby required to show cause to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise; Kalimpong Division, why a penalty should not be imposed on him for contravention of Rules 9(1) and 52(A) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.”
2. A further show cause notice dated July 14, 1956 was issued by the Collector of Central Excise to the Manager, Makaibari Tea Estate stating that—
“Whereas it appears that the Manager, Makaibari Tea Estate has contravened Rules 9(1) and 52 (A) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, in as much as 4 Tea chests (Sl. No. 37-40) containing 800 lbs. of tea was surreptitiously removed from Makaibari Tea Estate on 23rd April, 1954 under cover of Gate Pass No. 209 of 1954 and invoice No. L.C 6 of 1954 against which 14 Tea Chests (Sl. No. 37-50) were previously removed from Makaibari Tea Estate on 21st April,. 1954.”
3. The said Manager, Makaibari Tea Estate is hereby required to show cause to the undersigned why a penalty should not be imposed on him for contravention of Rules 9(1) and 52(A) the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
4. There was protracted proceedings under these notices. Eventually by the impugned Order dated August 13, 1956 the Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta directed-
“I therefore impose a penalty of Rs. 2,000 on the Makaibari Tea Estate under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and order that the Tea Estate shall pay the duty on 300 lbs. of tea at the appropriate rate.”
5. In my opinion, having regard to the fact that the notices to show cause required only the Manager, Makaibari Tea Estate, to show cause why penalty should not be imposed upon him, on the ground that he had contravened the relevent rules.
6. The Collector of Central Excise had no jurisdiction acting under those notices to impose the penalty on the Makaibari Tea Estate. The petitioner or the Makaibari Tea Estate has not had any opportunity of being heard on the question whether the petitioner or the Makaibari Tea Estate should be saddled with the penalty.
7. A further point was taken that the Makaibari Tea Estate is not a legal entity and therefore the penalty could not be legally imposed upon Makaibari Tea Estate and that the proper course in any event was to impose a penalty on the petitioner Makaibari Tea and Trading Co. (Private) Ltd. owner of Makaibari Tea Estate. On this point Mr. Mukherjee points out that the licence was issued in the name of the Makaibari Tea Estate. In this case, if is not necessary for me to decide this further point. I should quash the impugned order on the sole ground that the penalty could not be imposed upon Makaibari Tea Estate haying regard to the fact that the petitioner has not had any opportunity to show cause against the imposition of the penalty on the Makaibari Tea Estate of which the petitioner is the owner; It will however be open to the authorities concerned to initiate proceedings de novo under the Central Excise Rules, including Rule 9 for the imposition of penalty for contravention of the Central Excise. Rules, in particular Rule 9 thereof.
8. The Rule is made absolute. Let a writ in the nature of certiorari issue for the, purpose of quashing the order of the Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta, dated August 13, 1956 copy whereof is annexure “G” to the petition. It will be open to the authorities concerned to initiate proceedings de novo under the Central Excise Rules, including Rule 9, for the imposition of penalty for contravention of the Central Excise Rules, in particular Rule 9, thereof.