Penalty not specified in show cause notice - non-application of mind - de novo decision after observance of principles of natural justice - alternative statutory remedy by appeal to the Collector - condonation of delay in filing appealPenalty not specified in show cause notice - non-application of mind - de novo decision after observance of principles of natural justice - Validity of the Superintendent's order insofar as a penalty under rule 173Q was imposed without being invoked in the show cause notice and the Superintendent's reliance on another authority's order without applying his own mind. - HELD THAT: - The Superintendent's order was held to be vitiated because the penalty under rule 173Q was imposed though that specific penalty had not been invoked in the show cause notice, and because the Superintendent substantially relied on the Assistant Collector's order instead of applying his own mind. For these reasons the order was set aside and the matter was directed to be decided afresh by the Superintendent. The Superintendent must observe the principles of natural justice and apply his own mind in arriving at findings when redeciding the case de novo. [Paras 1]The Superintendent's order is set aside and the matter remitted for de novo decision after giving opportunity according to principles of natural justice and applying independent mind.Alternative statutory remedy by appeal to the Collector - condonation of delay in filing appeal - Whether the writ petition should be entertained instead of the petitioner invoking the statutory appeal remedy to the Collector, including condonation of delay. - HELD THAT: - The court treated the underlying controversy as one of fact to be resolved on material evidence and considered that the petitioner had an effective statutory remedy of appeal to the Collector. Although the petitioner alleged harassment by departmental officers for preferring a writ, the court found it appropriate to dismiss the writ petition and direct the petitioner to prefer the statutory appeal to the Collector with an application for condonation of delay. The court noted the change in departmental personnel and expressed expectation that the Collector would consider condoning the delay. [Paras 2, 3]The writ petition is dismissed; the petitioner is directed to prefer a statutory appeal to the Collector, Central Excise, with an application for condonation of delay.Final Conclusion: The Superintendent's order is set aside and remitted for fresh decision observing principles of natural justice; the writ petition is dismissed and the petitioner is directed to prefer a statutory appeal to the Collector, Central Excise, with an application for condonation of delay; no order as to costs.

Integral parts of goods - essential for packaging - containers ordinarily intended for packaging of goods - separate supply immaterial for levy of duty - escaped assessment - invocation of Rule 10A for goods escaping assessment - distinction between short levy and non-assessmentIntegral parts of goods - essential for packaging - containers ordinarily intended for packaging of goods - separate supply immaterial for levy of duty - Lids (Tiklies) supplied separately form part of metal containers and their value is includible for levy of duty on the containers. - HELD THAT: - The appellants admitted that lids were supplied to the same customers to whom metal containers had earlier been supplied, indicating that the containers were incomplete without the lids and became complete only after supply of the lids. As lids are integral and essential for packaging, and metal containers fall within the definition of "containers ordinarily intended for packaging of goods," it is immaterial whether lids are supplied simultaneously or subsequently. Therefore the value of the lids can be added to the value of the metal containers for purposes of levy of duty. [Paras 1]The lids are integral parts of the metal containers and their value is liable to duty as part of the containers.Escaped assessment - invocation of Rule 10A for goods escaping assessment - distinction between short levy and non-assessment - Confirmation of demand under Rule 10A was justified because the lids had escaped assessment and this case is distinguishable from instances of short levy or clandestine removal considered in Elpbinston. - HELD THAT: - The Supreme Court decision cited (Elpbinston) was examined and held to be inapplicable because that case concerned short levy or removal with knowledge of officers, whereas here the lids had not been assessed at all and thus escaped assessment. The appellants did not inform the department that lids in the stated quantity were being supplied to the same customers earlier supplied with containers. Given that the goods escaped assessment rather than a mere inadvertent short levy, invocation and confirmation of demand under Rule 10A by the Assistant Collector was appropriate. [Paras 2]Invocation and confirmation of the demand under Rule 10A is justified as the lids escaped assessment and the Elpbinston rationale does not apply.Final Conclusion: Appeal rejected; demand confirmed on the grounds that the lids are integral to the metal containers and the demand under Rule 10A for goods escaping assessment is legally sustainable.