JUDGMENT
1. This writ petition is directed against an order dated 27th June, 1986 passed by the Additional Secretary to the Government of India under Sub-section (4) or Section 35EE of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Sub-section (4) reads "The Central Government may, of its own motion, annul or modify any order referred to in Sub-section (1)."
2. The petitioner had stored molasses in a kutcha pit. The physical balance of molasses according to RG 1 account should have been 11313.86 quintals but the book balance was recorded as 5827.50 quintals without any entry for regular removal of the balance quantity of 5486.36 quintals. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Rampur was not satisfied about the explanation given by the petitioner for the above discrepancy and, therefore, demanded duty on the shortage of 5486.36 quintals of molasses and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 500/-.
3. In appeal preferred by the petitioner, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi accepted the explanation of the petitioner that the loss of molasses was due to natural causes. On these findings the demand of excise was set aside and the penalty was also remitted.
4. The Central Government took proceedings under Sub-section (4) of Section 35EE of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 against the order passed in appeal by the Collector of Central Excise and partially restored the order passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Rampur.
5. It is in this background that this writ petition has been preferred challenging the impugned order dated 27th June, 1986.
6. The solitary contention urged on behalf of the petitioner was that against the appellate order a further appeal could have been filed before the Appellate Tribunal and in these circumstances, the Central Government could not have exercised its power of revision under Section 35EE(4) aforesaid.
7. We have considered the submission carefully, but in our opinion it is devoid of merits. The provision under which the impugned order was made is couched in a plain and simple language and does not admit of any ambiguity. On a plain reading of Sub-section (4) of Section 35EE aforesaid, there is nothing to suggest that the Central Government cannot invoke its power of revision merely because the appellate order could be appealed against. Except for stating the proposition the learned Counsel for the petitioner made no attempt whatsoever to substantiate the plea. No authority or principle of law was brought to our notice because of which the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner could be accepted. We find no error in the impugned order which may call for any interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
8. No other point was urged before this Court.
9. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly, dismissed.