1998 (10) TMI 76

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . No. 4691 of 1991 as being not maintainable because the petitioner has not exhausted the alternative remedy of appeal under the Central Excises & Customs Act. 2.Upon notice, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has contended that notice under challenge being without jurisdiction, appeal is not an efficacious remedy. 3.Vide notice dated 28-2-1991, Collector, Central Excise call .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 3Q of the Rules. Petitioner was told to give reply within 30 days of the receipt of the notice. 4.According to the petitioner, no excise duty was chargeable as it had undertaken the work of fabrication and erection of steel structures for the Sugar Mills, Nakodar. 5.The question thus involved in the writ petition is as to whether petitioner manufactured steel structures or it is a case of fabric .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ribed by the Act and not by a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6.Accordingly, prayer made in the application is allowed and the writ petition is dismissed being premature. Since the period specified for giving reply to the show cause notice has expired, petitioner if so advised, may file reply within 45 days from today and on receipt of the reply. The Collector, Central Ex .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X