1990 (11) TMI 166 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Challenge against order dated 14th April, 1989 by Assistant Collector under Rule 173C of Central Excise Rules.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a manufacturer of dry battery torches, filed an application under sub-rule (11) of Rule 173C of the Central Excise Rules. The application was rejected by the Assistant Collector through an order dated 14th April, 1989. The petitioner argued that the rejection order lacked reasoning, was issued by the Assistant Collector instead of the Collector, and failed to consider relevant circumstances. The petitioner's contention was based on the requirement of the authority to exercise discretion considering all relevant factors and to provide reasons for the decision, as established by legal precedents such as Bhagat Raja's case and other judgments under the Central Excise Act.

Rule 173C mandates manufacturers to submit a price list of goods chargeable with duty at a value-dependent rate. The rule outlines the approval process for the price list, including situations where prior approval is necessary. Sub-rule (11) of Rule 173C allows the Collector to permit an assessee to declare the price of goods for a specific consignment based on market fluctuations or nature of goods. In this case, the petitioner sought approval under sub-rule (11) due to the variable pricing of scrap obtained during torch manufacturing. The Court emphasized the need for the Collector to evaluate the application under sub-rule (11) and provide a reasoned decision, as failure to do so could lead to revision or judicial intervention.

The Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, quashing the impugned order and directing the Collector to issue a fresh order after considering all relevant circumstances, including any further representations by the petitioner within a specified timeframe. The judgment highlighted the importance of providing reasons for administrative decisions to prevent arbitrariness and ensure accountability. The Court declined to dismiss the writ petition based on alternate remedies, emphasizing the petitioner's right to seek judicial review under the law.