2010 (8) TMI 105 - HC - Central Excise

Sachet Making Machine- Assessee appealed the court to quash a letter issued by Additional Commissioner (Preventive). Department was of the view to impose tax on the manufacture of Sachet Making Machine. Court declined to interefere stating that Question of leviability of duty as per rules is a matter to be determined by the statutory authorities under the Act in the first instance. Difference of opinion between one or the other authority cannot be a ground to interfere in the writ petition at this stage. In view of availability of alternative remedy before hierarchy of authorities under the statutory scheme, we do not deem it appropriate to entertain this petition at this stage.

Summary

Issues:
Quashing of a letter issued by Additional Commissioner and determination of whether a sachet making machine is considered a packing machine under the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought to quash a letter issued by the Additional Commissioner and requested a direction stating that a sachet making machine is not classified as a packing machine under the Chewing Tobacco and Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machines Rules, 2010. The petitioner argued that their product, "filter Khaini," packed in filter sachets, should not be considered as notified goods under the Rules as they were not packed with the aid of machines as specified. The petitioner relied on a favorable view expressed by the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise, Sangrur. However, the impugned letter disagreed with this view, stating that duty would be leviable on the basis of the number of Filter Khaini Sachet Machines installed in the factory under section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

The Court heard the arguments presented by the petitioner's counsel, who contended that the view of the Deputy Commissioner should apply to their case, even if an appeal was filed against the order. However, the Court rejected this submission, emphasizing that the determination of duty leviability under the rules is within the purview of statutory authorities under the Act. The Court highlighted that a difference of opinion between authorities does not warrant interference in a writ petition at that stage. Given the availability of an alternative remedy before the hierarchy of authorities under the statutory scheme, the Court deemed it inappropriate to entertain the petition at that juncture.

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing that the question of duty leviability as per the rules is a matter for the statutory authorities to decide initially. The Court underscored the importance of following the established hierarchy of authorities and procedures under the statutory scheme, indicating that such disputes should be resolved through the prescribed channels rather than through writ petitions.