1983 (11) TMI 71 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to trade notice and summons regarding classification of product "liment," alternative classification under Tariff Item No. 68, contention on binding effect of trade notice, hierarchy of appellate authorities under the Excise Act, jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226.

Analysis:
The petitioners sought quashing of a trade notice and summons related to the classification of the product "liment" and alternative classification under Tariff Item No. 68. The Additional Collector issued a trade notice classifying "liment" under Item No. 23(2) of the C.E.T., leading to apprehension that the Assistant Collector would follow this classification. Previous decisions by the Central Board of Excise and Customs and the Collector (Appeals) favored classification under Tariff Item No. 68. The petitioners argued that the Assistant Collector might not act independently due to the trade notice. The court noted the hierarchy of appellate authorities under the Excise Act for challenging assessments.

The Union of India contended that the Assistant Collector is not bound by the trade notice and should decide independently. The court emphasized that the Assistant Collector, as a statutory authority, is not bound by administrative instructions and should decide judicially. The petitioners were advised to follow the hierarchy of appellate authorities provided under the Excise Act for redressal. The court referenced a case supporting the need to exhaust statutory remedies before approaching the High Court under Article 226.

The court analyzed the provisions of the Central Excises Act and highlighted the availability of appellate remedies against assessment orders. It emphasized the role of the Assistant Collector in deciding the classification of the product and the importance of presenting facts and materials for assessment. The court concluded that the writ petitions were premature as the petitioners had adequate alternative remedies through the hierarchy of appellate authorities and were not entitled to invoke the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226.

In the final decision, the court dismissed the writ petitions, stating that the petitioners had failed to establish the need for extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 and had adequate alternative remedies through the statutory appellate process. The court upheld the importance of exhausting statutory remedies before seeking relief through writ jurisdiction.