1993 (11) TMI 63

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the first respondent. The second writ petition is to quash a Trade Notice 12/1993 dated 5-2-1993 issued by the third respondent. The petitioner company is engaged in the manufacture of air assisted braking equipment. They are also undertaking job work for T.V.S. Suzuki Ltd. by producing castings from the raw materials supplied by the said customer. Virgin aluminium is procured by the petitioner-co .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y. It is under these circumstances that the petitioners were surprised to receive the impugned show cause notice from the first respondent, asking them to show cause as to why a duty of Rs. 16,37,827/- should not be demanded for the removal of the 'ash' and 'dross' during the period from 1-2-1993 to 23-8-1993. In the show cause notice the first respondent states that the removal will come under Ru .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... in showing cause and going through the formalities. A perusal of the Trade Notice dated 5-2-1993 shows that the question had been examined by the Central Board of Excise and Customs and the Department is of the view that Rule 57F(2) would cover removal of inputs as such or after they have been partially processed, during the course of the manufacture of final products, to a place outside the facto .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... titioner and as a Quasi-Judicial Authority decide whether the facts of the petitioner's case will come under Rule 57F(2) or 57F(4) of the Central Excise Rules. The Trade Notice does not bind the first respondent and hand and foot in the sense that the first respondent has no discretion or power to decide the case on merits. I am therefore, not inclined to entertain these writ petitions at the stag .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rcular dated 20-10-1986 was valid because it was general terms whereas the trade notice dated 26-10-1990 had dispensed with certain requirements of "a nexus between the deposits and price". In other words, I had held that the Trade Notice interfered with the Quasi-Judicial power of the Authority issuing the show cause notice. Therefore, the said decision will not apply to the facts of the present .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X