1991 (11) TMI 63 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to levy of excise duty and compliance with excise duty procedures under Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

Analysis:
The petitioners, engaged in building bodies of motor vehicles on chassis supplied by customers, claimed exemption from excise duty, asserting they are not manufacturers of motor vehicles. They relied on judgments from Punjab High Court and Tribunal supporting their claims. Respondents contended petitioners had obtained a license for manufacturing motor vehicles and had been paying duty till filing the writ petitions. Respondents argued that petitioners had not sought modification of classification lists to claim exemption, making the writ petitions premature. The judge found the petitions premature and advised petitioners to approach competent authorities for modification or reclassification of approved lists based on their business activities.

The judge allowed petitioners to move competent authorities for reclassification based on referenced judgments, directing authorities to consider representations objectively. The judge stated that if petitioners remained aggrieved after adjudication, they could seek further remedies as per the law. The judge noted that petitioners had obtained an interim order and provided bank guarantees, indicating that the fate of the bank guarantees would depend on the authorities' adjudication if petitioners submitted appropriate applications within six weeks. Ultimately, the judge dismissed the writ petitions without costs, considering them premature in light of the need for prior adjudication by the competent authorities.

In conclusion, the judge dismissed the writ petitions as premature, advising petitioners to seek reclassification through competent authorities based on their business activities. The judge emphasized the importance of allowing authorities to scrutinize and decide on exemption claims before resorting to court intervention. The judge granted petitioners the opportunity to pursue further remedies if unsatisfied with the authorities' decisions post-adjudication. The fate of bank guarantees provided by petitioners was tied to the authorities' decisions following the submission of appropriate applications within a specified timeframe.