Judgment :- RAMANUJAM, J The petitioner herein is a grower of tobacco at his village at Elugamvalasu, Ponnivadi, Dharapuram Taluk, Coimbatore D., for several years. He has taken out a licence for the purpose of curing tobacco which he grew under the Central Excise Rules. Under the said licence, the petitioner is permitted to cure tobacco and the quantity so cured would have to be accounted for to the Central Excise authorities. In the year 1967-68 he submitted a return on 15-3-1968, showing that he has cured 1140 kgs. of chewing tobacco. When the Central Excise Officer visited the petitioner's place 9-9-1968, for ascertaining as to how he disposed of the cured tobacco, the petitioner stated that he had transferred 1106 kgs of tobacco to a private warehouse licensee, one K.S. Ponnuswami, who is a licensed dealer in Bhavani as per transport certificate T.P. No. 3. 247123, dated 24-8-1968. When the said Ponnuswami was contacted he denied having transported the tobacco from the petitioner premises. 2.Thereafter an excise duty of rupees 2, 388.96 payable on the said stock of 1106 kgs. of chewing tobacco was demanded from the petitioner by an order of the Superintendent of Central Excise, Integrated Divisional Office, Erode, dated 24-9-1969, on the ground that the liability of the petitioner as a curer of tobacco continues under R. 29 of the Central Excise, Rules, 1944, hereinafter referred to as the rules. The petitioner questioned the said demand by filing an appeal before the Collector of Central Excise, Madras, who by his order dated 17-4-1971, rejected the appeal holding that the order passed by the Superintendent of Central Excise is in accordance with law. Against the orders of the Collector, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the Central Government but that also failed. The petitioner has thereupon approached this court, for the issue of awrit of certiorarito quash the order of the Central Government upholding the demand for excise duty made against the petitioner. Against the orders of the Collector, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the Central Government but that also failed. The petitioner has thereupon approached this court, for the issue of awrit of certiorarito quash the order of the Central Government upholding the demand for excise duty made against the petitioner. 3.The contention of the petitioner is that his liability to pay Central Excise duty in respect of the tobacco disposed of by him has ceased as soon as the tobacco has been disposed of in accordance with the rules and that in the circumstances of this case where the goods have been transported under a valid permit issued by the authorities to one Ponnuswami, R 29 cannot be invoked to recover the excise duty from the petitioner. According to the respondent, however, R. 29 preserves the liability of the curer to pay excise duty until the transfer of ownership of the tobacco from the petitioner of another warehouse licensee is reported and acknowledged by the proper officer, and that the petitioner not having reported the transfer of ownership and acknowledged by the Central Excise Officer at Bhavani, the proper officer, the petitioner cannot question the levy of excise duty on him. 4.In the counter affidavit the respondents have not disputed the assertion made by the petitioner that the goods were transferred under a valid transport permit signed by the vendee, Ponnuswami, and that this has been reported to the Excise Officer at Dharapuram, who has acknowledged the same. The Central Excise Officer at Dharapuram is the proper officer with reference to the petitioner. The counter-affidavit also proceeds on the basis that the petitioner in fact produced the duplicate foil dated 24-8-1968 issued by the purchaser, the said Ponnuswami, a bonded warehouse licensee at Bhavani. However, the stand taken in the counter file is that since the alleged purchaser Ponnuswami has denied having transported tobacco from the curer's premises, the liability of the petitioner cannot cease until the transfer of ownership in the tobacco is reported to and acknowledged by the Central Excise officer, Bhavani, in whose jurisdiction Ponnuswami, the warehouse licensee is carrying on business. Thus the controversy between the parties appears to lie in a narrow compass. 5.It is not the respondents' case in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner has clandestinely disposed of the cured tobacco for consumption. Thus the controversy between the parties appears to lie in a narrow compass. 5.It is not the respondents' case in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner has clandestinely disposed of the cured tobacco for consumption. That the goods have been transported on the basis of a valid permit sent by Ponnuswami is not in dispute. It is only because Ponnuswami has not admitted the transport of the goods, the authorities have chosen to invoke R. 29 on the ground that the petitioner has not reported and satisfied the proper officer at Bhavani about the transfer of ownership of the tobacco. If Ponnuswami had admitted the transport of the goods, no liability could be attached to the petitioner in respect of the tobacco transported. It is because Ponnuswami has denied the transport notwithstanding his furnishing a valid transport permit, it has been taken that the transfer of ownership was not reported to and acknowledged by the proper officer at Bhavani. The counter-affidavit refers to a statement given by Ponnuswami, admitting the despatch of the transport permits by him to six dealers including the petitioner, but denying the receipt of the goods on the basis of the transport permits. Ponnuswami does not however seem to have taken any steps for finding out what happened to the permits despatched by him. His conduct in obtaining the transport permit form from the excise authorities and sending it to six dealers and keeping quiet even though he has not received the goods in pursuance of the permits sent by him seems to be quite suspicious. It may be that after the receipt of the goods he has not accounted for the stocks received by him in his accounts, with a view to evade his liability towards excise duty. However, it is not necessary to go into Ponnuswami's conduct in this case. It is sufficient to consider the scope of R. 29 to find out whether the petitioner's liability continues even after the transport of the goods under a valid permit. R. 29 is as follows :- "Continuance of curer's liability for payment of duty. However, it is not necessary to go into Ponnuswami's conduct in this case. It is sufficient to consider the scope of R. 29 to find out whether the petitioner's liability continues even after the transport of the goods under a valid permit. R. 29 is as follows :- "Continuance of curer's liability for payment of duty. When the curer sells unmanufactured products, without payment of duty as provided in R. 24, both the purchasers of the products and the person into whose possession the products pass after purchase shall become liable for the payment of the duty due thereon, but the curer shall not be absolved from the liability laid upon him by R. 19 until the transfer of ownership has been reported to, and acknowledged by the proper officer." * This rule lays down that where the curer has sold tobacco in un-manufactured state without payment of duty as provided in R. 24, his liability for payment of excise duty will continue until the transfer of ownership in the tobacco has been reported to and acknowledged by the proper officer. It has been asserted by the petitioner in his affidavit that the transfer of permit has been reported to and acknowledged by the Central Excise Officer at Dharapuram who is the proper officer so far as he is concerned. In the counter affidavit this averment has not been denied. But it is stated that the transfer of ownership has not been reported to and acknowledged by the Excise Officer at Bhavani. Therefore, the question is as to who is the proper officer to whom the petitioner has to report the transfer of ownership of the tobacco and who is to acknowledge the same. 6.In this context, it is necessary to scan through the relevant rules, R. 19 imposes a duty on cured tobacco, as soon as it is cured and is in a fit state for sale, and makes the curer liable for payment of the duty until the liability is to the knowledge and satisfaction of the proper officer, transferred as provided in R. 29 to another person duly licensed to carry on business in such tobacco. R. 24 enables the curer to clear the tobacco on payment of duty or deposit the same in a public warehouse or to deposit in bonded store-room in the curer's own premises or transfer to a private dealer for the storage of such products. In this case, the petitioner claims to have transferred the tobacco to a wholesale dealer possessing a warehouse licence. Rule 26 provides that whenever the goods are transferred to a warehouse licence dealer, the transport should be under a transport certificate prepared as described in R. 31. Rule 31 states that all the products sent by a curer to a public or private warehouse should be accompanied by a certificate in the proper form signed by or on behalf of a grower or curer or the warehouse licensee, and such a certificate should contain the name of the curer, the place where the products were cured, the weight of the tobacco and the name and address of the person to whose premises the tobacco are transferred.7.It has been conceded in paragraph 8 of the counter-affidavit that the petitioner has complied with the requirements of Rules 24, 26 and 31. But the complaint appears to be that the petitioner has not complied with R. 29 in that he has not reported the transfer of the ownership of the goods to and acknowledged by the Excise Officer at Bhavani. Thus the controversy between the parties is as to the scope on the words 'proper officer'. 'Proper officer' has been defined under R. 2 (xi) of the rules thus :- "the officer in whose jurisdiction the land or premises of the producer of any excisable goods, or of any person engaged in any process of production of, or trade in, such goods or containers thereof whether as a grower, curer, wholesale dealer, broker or commission agent or manufacturer, or intended grower, curer, wholesale dealer, broker, commission agent, or manufacturer, are situate." * According to this definition, so for as the curer is concerned, the officer in whose jurisdiction he has carried on the curing operation will be the proper officer. Therefore, the Central Excise Officer, Dharapuram, within whose jurisdiction the petitioner has cured the tobacco is the proper officer so far as he is concerned and the petitioner's duty is only to report to him about the transfer of the ownership of the tobacco and get his acknowledgment for the same. Even otherwise, having regard to the object of the rules, the petitioner is liable to account for the tobacco in his possession only to the Central Excise Officer at Dharapuram. Therefore, by way of rendering an account of the stocks held by him, he has to report the transfer of the ownership of the tobacco to the officer at Dharapuram. It is true, Ponnuswami, the alleged purchaser from the petitioner in view of his having a licensed warehouse at Bhavani, is acccountable for his stocks to the Central Excise Officer at Bhavani and he is concerned. But that does not mean that the petitioner has become accountable for the stocks to the Excise Officer, Bhavani. The fact that the transport of cured tobacco is required to be done under a permit issued in accordance with R. 31 indicates that once the movement of the goods is shown to be in pursuance of the transport certificate given by a warehouse licensee, the local officer within whose jurisdiction the vendor carries on business will have to be satisfied, and the officer from whom the transfer form has been obtained by the transferee has to take up follow up action for the recovery of the excise duty from the transferee. Having regard to the object and the purpose of R. 31, requiring a transport permit in the prescribed form issued by the prescribed authority the curer is not liable to satisfy the proper officer in whose jurisdiction the licensed warehouse of the transferee is located. The curer's obligation is only to satisfy the proper officer within whose jurisdiction the curing operations have been performed and to whom he is accountable for the stocks in his possession. I am, therefore, of the view that once the petitioner has satisfied the Excise Officer at Dharapuram about the transfer of ownership of the tobacco and the same has been acknowledged by that officer, his liability should be taken to have ceased under R. 29. In my view, therefore, the order of the Superintendent of Central Excise, Intergrated Divisional Office, Erode, demanding a sum of Rs. In my view, therefore, the order of the Superintendent of Central Excise, Intergrated Divisional Office, Erode, demanding a sum of Rs. 2, 388.96 and affirmed by respondents 1 and 2 has to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. The writ petition is allowed. But there will be no order as to costs.