V. C. Daga, J. - (1.)Whether auditors of the company could be subjected to the action under section 9 (1) (bbb) of the CENTRAL EXCISE AND SALT ACT, 1944 ("act" for short) Act read with Rule 209-A of the Central Excise Rules ("said rules" for short) framed under the provisions of the Act is the question involved in these petitions. Since the common questions of law and fact arise in both petitions, the same were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. The parties are referred to in their original capacity, however, facts are drawn from Writ Petition No. 1319 of 1994 (Jayantilal thakkar and Co. v. Union of India) '. Factual Matrix :
(2.)The first petitioner is a firm of Chartered Accountants engaged, inter alia; in the auditing of accounts of various companies. The second petitioner is a partner in the first petitioner firm.
(3.)The respondent No. 2-Collector of Central Excise in exercise of powers and functions, inter alia; under the provisions of the Act issued six show cause notices to the petitioners alleging that in the course of audit of M/s. G. T. C. Industries Ltd. (G. T. C. ) , a tobacco manufacturing company, the petitioners after having examined relevant documents deliberately certified the books of accounts of G. T. C. to be true and correct in spite of noticing removal of more than one consignment of cigarettes under different invoices bearing same serial number and different delivery challans also bearing same serial number but paid central excise duty for one consignment of cigarettes removed under one set of documents out of the above. It is, thus, alleged that the first petitioner had, prima facie; dealt with the excisable goods, which they were knowing and had reason to believe, ate liable for confiscation under the Act or the said Rules, consequently the petitioner firms have rendered themselves liable for penal action under Rule 209- a of the said Rules.