1993 (11) TMI 58 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 regarding post-manufacturing expenses; Violation of principles of natural justice in issuing additional demand without notice.

Analysis:

1. The petitioners, a Public Limited Company engaged in cigarette manufacturing, faced a controversy over the interpretation of Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, specifically regarding post-manufacturing expenses. The issue was resolved by a Supreme Court judgment. Various Collectors of Central Excise were issuing show cause notices on the assessable value determination method. The Director General ultimately directed the inclusion of the entire money value consideration in the assessable value for excise duty calculation. A workshop calculated the differential duty for different units, with the Bangalore unit owing Rs. 3,32,70,390.75. The petitioner paid the demanded amount without filing an appeal against the Director General's order.

2. The cause of action for the writ petition arose when the second respondent demanded an additional sum of Rs. 27,57,93,086.75 without issuing a show cause notice or allowing the petitioner to participate in the determination process. The petitioner appealed to the first respondent, seeking waiver of pre-deposit duty. Upon apprehending unfavorable proceedings, the petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the demand. The first respondent dismissed the appeal, prompting the petitioner to file another writ petition against the dismissal order.

3. The judgment refers to a decision by the High Court of Patna on the violation of principles of natural justice. The Patna High Court ruled that demanding additional excise duty without providing notice to the company violates natural justice and the Act's scheme. Following this precedent, the present writ petition was allowed, setting aside the impugned demand. The respondents were directed to issue fresh orders after giving proper notice and allowing the petitioners to present objections in a fair inquiry. Consequently, one writ petition was allowed, and the other was dismissed as unnecessary, with no costs awarded.