9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Impugned order levying duty on limestone used in manufacturing cement. 2. Interpretation of manufacturing process under Central Excise Act. 3. Error of law apparent in the order. 4. Jurisdiction of High Court to correct the error. 5. Availability of alternate remedy through appeal. Analysis: Issue 1: The impugned order levied duty on limestone used in manufacturing cement under Heading 25.05 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The petitioner contested the order, arguing that no manufacturing process occurred within their factory premises, and thus, no duty was applicable. Issue 2: The Additional Collector concluded that crushing limestone in the factory amounted to a manufacturing process under Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act. The petitioner challenged this conclusion, stating that the authority did not consider their assertion that limestone was crushed outside the factory premises. Issue 3: The High Court examined whether the impugned order contained an error of law apparent on the face of it, which could be corrected by a writ of certiorari. It was established that the Additional Collector's finding was based on an obvious error of record, as he did not consider the petitioner's claim that limestone was not crushed within their factory. Issue 4: The court determined that the error in the order was significant enough to warrant correction through a writ of certiorari. The non-application of mind by the adjudicating authority and the reliance on incorrect information led to an unsustainable conclusion, which needed to be rectified. Issue 5: Regarding the availability of an alternate remedy through appeal, the court acknowledged that while generally, statutory remedies should be exhausted before seeking a writ, in this case, due to the patent error in the order and the prolonged pendency of the case, it was appropriate for the High Court to intervene. The argument that the court's supervisory jurisdiction should not be invoked due to the existence of an appeal remedy was not accepted. In conclusion, the impugned order was quashed, and the matter was remitted back to the Additional Collector for re-determination after providing the petitioner with a hearing. The court allowed the writ application and directed the petitioners to appear before the Additional Collector for further proceedings in accordance with the court's observations.
|
