9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Challenge to notice to show cause issued by the Additional Collector, Central Excise and Customs for alleged contravention of Central Excises and Salt Act and Rules. 2. Determination of whether crushing of limestones for manufacture of cement clinker amounts to "manufacture" under the Act. 3. Jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 to interfere with a show cause notice. 4. Interpretation of the term "manufacture" under Section 2(f) of the Act and Chapter Note 2 of Chapter 25 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. Analysis: 1. The judgment pertains to two writ applications challenging a notice to show cause issued by the Additional Collector, Central Excise and Customs, alleging contravention of provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act along with specific Rules. The main contention was whether the notice should be quashed based on the facts averred. The Court noted that the issue involved determining if crushing of limestones for cement clinker production constitutes "manufacture" under the Act. 2. The petitioner, holding a Central Excise license for cement manufacture, argued that crushing limestone into smaller pieces does not amount to "manufacture" under the Act. Conversely, the Central Excise authorities contended that such crushing constitutes "manufacture" and non-payment of duty is a violation. The Court had to decide if the notice issued lacked jurisdiction. 3. The Court discussed the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 concerning interference with show cause notices. It highlighted that premature interference is generally avoided, but if the authority's action is prima facie null and void or lacks jurisdiction, the Court can intervene. The key was whether the notice alleged an offense justifying its issuance. 4. The interpretation of the term "manufacture" under Section 2(f) of the Act and Chapter Note 2 of Chapter 25 was crucial. The Court emphasized that the inclusive definition of "manufacture" under the Act must be considered, along with specific Chapter Notes in the Central Excise Tariff Act. It noted that the process of crushing limestones could amount to "manufacture" based on the extended definition, necessitating a case-specific analysis. In conclusion, the Court found the writ applications premature and dismissed them, stating that the notice to show cause could not be quashed under Article 226 jurisdiction. The petitioner was directed to file a show cause within a specified period, allowing the authority to proceed lawfully. The judgment did not award costs to any party involved.
|
