The petitioner is a manufacture of plywood, block board and such other plywood products. They have a factory at Chota Hapjan, Tinsukia, Assam. They manufacture different qualities of block boards in their factory and the same had been graded differentially for the purposes of imposing excise duty. Different brand names such as Maharaja, Maruti, Rose, Swati, Ruby, Lotus had been given by the petitioner after grading them according to quality in order of gradation. Maharaja grade is the highest grade of block board and the brand name of Rose is for the III grade of plywood/block board and Ruby brand is the IV grade of plywood/block board. It appears that on 11th February, 1990 the petitioners dispatched 700 pieces of commercial plywood of various brands and sizes under Gate Pass No. 1456, Challan No.326 through the Bajrangbali Roadways vide truck No. UTM 9596. Along with the aforesaid consignment a bill for Rs.67,415/- being the price of the goods was also forwarded. According to the brand and the quality of the goods the excise duty was paid by the petitioners to the Excise Authority on clearance of the goods from the factory gate. The price list was submitted and the same was approved and thereafter the goods were dispatched. Thereafter on 14.2.90 on enroute the goods were seized at Dhubri by the Excise Authority on the ground that the goods were being clandestinely manufactured and removed and secondly the qualities of the goods were different than the quality mentioned in the gate pass. On these two grounds the authorities issued a show cause notice to the petitioners on 10th August, 1990 alleging that expert opinion was taken from M/s Dhubri Plywood in the matter by the authorities. According to the said expert opinion the goods contained in the said truck were of superior quality and they do not possess any defects of inferior grade of products. The respondents replied to the same and submitted that there was no clandestine removal of the goods. On the contrary all the goods were properly graded and proper excise duties were paid. It was also submitted by the petitioners that the labourers may have by mistake stamped 'Swati brand' on the products of 'Rose brand'. That only related to 7 pieces of block board. There was nothing irregular and the said goods should be released forthwith. On the contrary all the goods were properly graded and proper excise duties were paid. It was also submitted by the petitioners that the labourers may have by mistake stamped 'Swati brand' on the products of 'Rose brand'. That only related to 7 pieces of block board. There was nothing irregular and the said goods should be released forthwith. In spite of that the Excise Authorities did not release the goods and on the contrary held an adjudication proceeding and passed an order confiscating the goods and imposing fine of Rs.l lac by an order dated 14th November, 1990. From the said order it appears that the quantity declared by the petitioners as to 700 pieces were accepted to be true. The petitioners had declared that there were28 pieces of Maharaja brand block boards and 672 pieces of grade III Rose brand. However, on verification it was found that 28 pieces of Maharaja brand was correct whereas instead of 672 of Rose brand there were 665 Rose brand and 7 pieces of Swati brand. The case of the petitioners was that Swati brand was mistakenly stamped by the labourers on the products of Rose brand. In any event the Excise Authorities have not lost any excise duty by this mistaken stamping, because excise duty is more for Rose brand than the excise duty payable on Swati brand. The only discrepancy it appears is regarding 7 pieces of Swati brand, otherwise the gradation of the goods according to the petitioners was correctly done and there as no evasion of excise duty in the matter. 2. Mr. Choudhury on behalf of the Department submits that the petitioners should have availed of the alternative remedy available to them and should have appealed against the said order of the appropriate authority. Instead of doing that they have come before this Court. Secondly Mr. Choudhury's argument is that expert opinion was taken and on the basis of the said expert opinion the adjudicating authorities passed an appropriate order of imposition of penalty and fine. 3. I have carefully considered the submissions of the counsel for the parties. In this connection I refer to the order passed by the Additional Collector of Customs and Central Excise. 3. I have carefully considered the submissions of the counsel for the parties. In this connection I refer to the order passed by the Additional Collector of Customs and Central Excise. The Collector in its order states as follows : "The Central Excise Department are not technicians nor expert on wood technology and hence to a very large extent the price and grade declared by the companies/factories are accepted with considerable good faith in the absence of any other method on the spot." Admittedly, the Excise Authorities are not capable of knowing the quality of the products nor are they expert about the gradation of the quality and brand of plywood product. In such view of the matter, the authorities relied on so called expert opinion of some trade people. The allegation of the petitioners is that at no stage, except making allegations in the show cause notice and in the adjudication order, no copy of the so called expert opinion was given to the petitioners. It is not known who were the so called experts who decided the quality of the products of the petitioners. The petitioners were not informed the criteria or the basis of the opinion of the experts. No names of the experts were disclosed nor any copy was given to the petitioners. According to the petitioners the same should have been done by technical experts who alone could decide the quality of a product. Admittedly, there was no technical expert opinion taken in the matter nor any copy of such an opinion was given to the petitioners to reply to the same. Even the so called expert opinion of the trade people was not given to the petitioners to meet the charges levelled against the petitioners. As such, the entire proceedings of adjudication was vitiated in violation of the principles of natural justice, and bad in law. 4. From the adjudication order itself it appears that Excise Authorities accepted and proceeded on the basis of the report of so called experts who were not technical experts. Such report of so called trade people were not disclosed to the petitioners. The petitioners were unaware as to the criteria or formula or the basis of such an expert opinion. The said action of the adjudicating officer was totally in violation of the principles of natural justice. Such report of so called trade people were not disclosed to the petitioners. The petitioners were unaware as to the criteria or formula or the basis of such an expert opinion. The said action of the adjudicating officer was totally in violation of the principles of natural justice. The said officer had relied on a so called expert opinion without disclosing the contents of the said Document to the petitioners. In the judgment reported in 1970 Gujrat Law Reporter (Antolal Khodofhai & Co vs. R. Prasad, Collector of Central Excise & others, it was observed as follows : "It is well settled that when administrative tribunals act quasi judicially it will be open to them to collect any data, but it is equally well settled that under the principles of natural justice, before it takes into consideration any such data or facts collected, the tribunal must give an opportunity to the party concerned to present his case on such facts collected by the authority and it is only after hearing him in respect thereof that the decisions should be reached. It is a blatant infringement of principles of natural justice to take into consideration any fact likely to bear upon its decision which is collected behind the back of the party concerned, and where a party's interest is likely to be prejudiced if no opportunity at all is given to such party to present his case." The same principles have been reiterated by the Supreme Court repeatedly, see (1) AIR 1959 SC 1111 (Phulbari Tea Estate vs. Workmen), (2) AIR 1963 SC 375 ,377 (State of Mysore vs. Shivabasappa) and (3) 1979 ELT (J) 613 (SC) (CCE vs. Sanawarmal Purohit). Further, the said adjudicating officer had proceeded wrongly and by not referring the matter to technical experts any relying on the so called expert opinion of the trade people. Further, nothing has been disclosed by the authorities as to what prompted the authorities to seize the said goods enroute, what were the reasons to believe for the Departmental Inspectors to consider that superior quality of goods were removed in the garb of inferior brand name since on its own admission Central Excise Department was not qualified to know the quality of the products. Suspicion, however, grave it might be, cannot take place of proof, there has to be cogent, believable and sustainable evidence with regard to the charge levelled. Suspicion, however, grave it might be, cannot take place of proof, there has to be cogent, believable and sustainable evidence with regard to the charge levelled. In the-premises I hold that the said order passed by the Additional Collector (Technical), Customs and Central Excise, Shillong on 24.1-.91 was untenable, unjustified, illegal, in violation of the principles of natural justice and void. I quash and set aside the fine and penalty imposed on the petitioners by the said order. 5. I agree with Mr. Choudhury that the petitioners should have availed themselves of the alternative remedy as provided under the Act. This is a principle which should be adhered if an adequate alternative remedy is available but in view of the fact that the rule was issued in the year 1991 and the whole matter is pending for long. I do not think that in the interest of justice the petitioners should be sent to the appellate authority. As such, the matter is being disposed of by passing the aforesaid order. In the result, the petition is disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.