1992 (6) TMI 39

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d by the Collector, Central Excise under Section 11A of the Central Excises Salt Act, 1944, (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') which seeks to raise the demand of excise duty amounting to Rs. 26,33,967.40. 2.By order dated 12th May, 1988, the writ petition was admitted but while declining to grant stay of proceedings, this Court ordered that if any demand is raised, it will not be recovered .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... llegations in the statement of facts as to how the petitioner has contravened the provisions of Rules 174, 52A, 53, 9(1), 173G read with Rule 226 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. He, therefore, submitted that since the said notice has been issued by an authority who has power under the statute to issue such a notice, the petitioner was not entitled to invoke the writ jurisdiction. 5.From the i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s neither without jurisdiction nor unwarranted in law. 6.Besides, the question whether there was any fraud, collusion, wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts, is a question of fact which could be adjudicated only by the authority created under the statute for this purpose. To adjudicate upon findings of facts, the writ jurisdiction of High Court cannot be invoked. In this connection relian .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X