9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (11) TMI 106X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ckward district of Dhar. Petitioners have submitted that the excise duty is chargeable with reference to value. The valuation of excisable goods for the purpose of assessment of assessable value is determined in accordance with Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter shall be referred to as 'the Act'). Petitioners have further contended that under Rule 173C of Central Excise Rules, 1944, every assessee who manufactures goods which are chargeable to duty of excise on the basis of its value, has to file with the proper officer a price list showing the price of such goods and the trade discount along with such necessary particulars. 3. Petitioners have also urged that the respondents all along had approved the price ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anagement of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyalaya and Others]; (iv) 1978 (2) E.L.T. (J 632) (M.P.) [Universal Cables Ltd. v. Union of India and Others]; (v) 1987 (30) E.L.T. 62 (M.P.) [Dharamsi Morarji Chemical Co. Ltd. v. Union of India and Another]; (vi) 1990 (50) E.L.T. 15 (M.P.) [Hindustan Electro Graphites Limited v. Union of India]; (vii) 1991 (53) E.L.T. 278 (M.P.) [Jayant Vitamins Ltd. v. Union of India]; (viii) M.P. No. 1817/1991 [M/s. Sonic Electrochem Pvt. Ltd. and Another v. Union of India and 4 Others]; (ix) M.P. No. 779/89 [Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. Union of India and Another], decided on 8-9-1994 [1997 (95) E.L.T. 212 (M.P.)]; (x) 1985 (22) E.L.T. 732 (M.P.) [Tata Exports Ltd. v. Union of India and Others]. 8. On the basis of aforesa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to show cause. 11. In the light of the aforesaid contentions raised by the parties, I have heard them at length and perused the record. 12. The fact remains that this petition has been preferred only against a show cause notice issued to it. Petitioners have so far not filed any reply to the said show cause notice. Petitioner's apprehension is that the said so called notice has been issued to it on the basis of the judgment of Bombay High Court reported in 1984 (18) E.L.T. 172 [Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. P. Ltd. v. Union of India and Others], which has been set aside by the Supreme Court. 13. Thus, the very jurisdiction of the authority issuing notice has been challenged. In AIR 1984 SC 754 [State of U.P. v. Labh Chand], it has been held a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioners shall have the freedom to submit their reply within a period of one month from today and to raise, if so advised, all objections which may be permitted to be raised in accordance with law. (ii) On such a reply being filed, the authority concerned shall consider all aspects of the matter and shall also give opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Only thereafter it is expected of the authority concerned to pass a reasoned order. (iii) In the event of adverse orders passed by the authority, the petitioners shall have recourse to the remedies available under the aforesaid Act. 16. Thus, without entering into the merits or demerits of the case, I dispose of the petition as mentioned above, leaving the parties to bear their ow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
