Skip to content


The Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg. (Wvg.) Co. Limited Vs. the Collector of Central Excise and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectExcise
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case NumberM.P. No. 354/83
Judge
Reported in1989(20)ECC117
AppellantThe Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg. (Wvg.) Co. Limited
RespondentThe Collector of Central Excise and ors.
DispositionPetition dismissed
Excerpt:
.....petition against show cause notice--not maintainable --central excises and salt act (1 of 1944)--central excise rules, 1944, rule 173c(2)--central excise valuation rules, 1975, rule 6(b)(i)--constitution of india, article 226.;the petitioner contended in a writ petition that it had filed before respondent no. 2 a price list for approval and that price list was approved by respondent no. 2 under rule 173c (2) of the central excise rules, 1944, that subsequently respondent no. 2 issued a notice to the petitioner to show cause why the approved price be not revised under rule 6(b)(i) of the central excise valuation rules, 1975 on the basis of value of comparable goods produced by other assessees at the nearest place, that the petitioner submitted applications for summoning certain..........is the nearest of your unit, the details of which have been supplied to you by superintendent, central excise, nagda, vide his letter no. sf/pl/117/76/961 dated 5-5-1980 have been relied upon in the show cause notice issued to you.you are requested to file your final reply to the show cause notice immediately in support of your defence now or file a written submission at the time of personal hearing likely to be fixed in the case soon.further, as requested by you, a copy of the membership list of the alkali association is enclosed herewith. this list discloses that both the units, viz., grasim, nagda and shriram chemical industries, kota are the members of this association.4. the petitioner has, therefore, filed this petition praying that respondent no. 1 be directed to issue summons.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. Heard Shri Chitale, learned Counsel for the petitioner, on the question of admission.

2. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

3. The material facts giving rise to this petition briefly are as follows :--

The petitioner has averred that it is engaged in the manufacture of sulphuric acid at its factory at Nagda for its captive consumption, that on 17th November, 1976, the petitioner filed before respondent No. 2 a price list for approval and that the said price list was approved by respondent No. 2 on 18th November, 1976 under Rule 173 C (2) of the Rules framed under the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). On 12-9-1978, respondent No. 2 issued a notice to the petitioner to show cause why the approved price be not revised under Rule 6(b)(i) of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 1975, on the basis of values of comparable goods produced by other assessees at the nearest place, Kota. The petitioner submitted applications for summoning certain witnesses and for seeking some further information. On 28th January, 1983, respondent No. 3 sent a letter to the petitioner informing it as follows:

I am directed by the Collector to inform you that enquiry made in this regard revealed that Kota is the nearest place, from Nagda where the comparable goods are produced and sold in the market. The prices of comparable goods of Shri Ram Chemical Industries, Kota, which is the nearest of your unit, the details of which have been supplied to you by Superintendent, Central Excise, Nagda, vide his letter No. SF/PL/117/76/961 dated 5-5-1980 have been relied upon in the show cause notice issued to you.

You are requested to file your final reply to the show cause notice immediately in support of your defence now or file a written submission at the time of personal hearing likely to be fixed in the case soon.

Further, as requested by you, a copy of the Membership List of the Alkali Association is enclosed herewith. This list discloses that both the units, viz., GRASIM, Nagda and Shriram Chemical Industries, Kota are the members of this Association.

4. The petitioner has, therefore, filed this petition praying that respondent No. 1 be directed to issue summons to certain witnesses to give evidence and toproduce documents in proceedings before respondent No. 1 and that he should be directed to decide the matter in accordance With the principles of natural justice and to pass orders on various applications filed by the petitioner from time to time.

5. Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, we have come to the conclusion that this petition deserves to be dismissed summarily. It was not disputed before us that against the final order that would be passed in the instant case, after hearing the petitioner, an appeal is provided. The enquiry is yet to be completed and it is expected that respondent No. 1 will conduct the enquiry having regard to the principles of natural justice and the rules framed in that behalf. However, if respondent No. 1 fails to observe the principles of natural justice or fails to comply with the requirement of law, then the petitioner is at liberty to ventilate its grievances before the appellate authority. When there is a normal remedy available to the petitioner, a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is, in our opinion, misconceived. This is not a fit case in our opinion for exercising the extraordinary powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

6. The petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed summarily.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //