ORDER
1. List has been revised. No one appears on behalf of respondents. We have, therefore, heard Sri Dilip Gupta for the petitioner only.
2. By this petition, the petitioner - a Government company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 - (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') seeks quashing of the impugned notice dated 17-9-1992, Annexure-11 to the writ petition.
3. In the aforesaid impugned notice, it is stated that during the course of stock taking on 25-10-1991, it was noticed that there was shortage of 402.293 MTs. of cement and 6884.793 MTs. of Clinker in the stock. Attention was drawn by the respondents that the petitioner had removed 4025.293 MTs of cement and 6884.793 MTs of clinker. Loss towards Central Excise Duty on cement was assessed at Rs. 95,852.00 at the rate of Rs. 215 P.M.T. and on the clinker it was assessed at Rs. 7,88,454.00. The petitioner was called upon by the impugned notice issued by the Collector, Central Excise, Allahabad, to show cause as to why the aforesaid duty be not recovered from it and the penalty be not imposed upon it under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944.
4. Aggrieved by the said show cause notice, the petitioner has come up to this Court.
5. The averments made in the petition are that Government of Uttar Pradesh entered into an agreement with M/s. Dalmia Industries Ltd. to transfer 51% shares of the former to the latter; that on 4/5-6-1991 M/s. Dalmia Industries Ltd. took over the actual physical management of the corporation; that no shortage in stock of excisable goods existed prior to the date of taking over possession by M/s. Dalmia Industries Ltd. that by Ordinance No. 41 of 1991, dated 11-10-1991, the management of the company was transferred back to the State Government and that the State of U.P. took over the management on 12-10-1991; that the checking and verifications were done on 13-10-1991 and 16-10-1991; that the cement and clinker found to be short were not removed in the course of the business of the petitioner company but the shortage of excisable goods occurred during the period from 4/5-6-1991 to 12-10-1991 during which period the management of the petitioner company remained with M/s. Dalmia Industries Ltd. and, therefore, the petitioner company could not be called upon to show cause.
6. In paragraph 3(e) of the counter affidavit, it is averred that "since the status of the U.P. State Cement Corporation Limited as well as the Central Excise L-4, licence remained unchanged before and after the joint venture (M/s. Dalmia Industries Limited and the U.P. State Government), hence the duty liability lies on M/s. U.P. State Cement Corporation Limited, Churk. Therefore, the demand cum show cause notice for Rs. 8,84,306/- due to shortage of excisable goods on 405.293 MTs of cement and 6884.793 MTs of clinker was issued to M/s. U.P. State Cement Corporation Limited, Churk by the Collector of Central Excise, Allahabad.... Any Central Excise demand is raised on M/s. U.P. State Cement Corporation is correct."
7. We see force in the above contention of the respondents which is in accord with the legal position. The demand was raised against the company and that entity continued all through. It is irrelevant as to who was managing the company or under whose effective control management of company remained during all these years. The company is a juristic person and, therefore, demand could be raised against the petitioner company irrespective of the management of the company having undergone change in the past.
8. For the above reasons, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. The interim order dated 7-12-1992 stand vacated. However, it will be open to the petitioner to raise other pleas available to it before the authority concerned.