Writ jurisdiction and disputed facts: commercial production date must be decided by the competent excise authority for exemption eligibility.

A writ court should not conclusively resolve a disputed factual question, such as the date of commencement of commercial production, where eligibility for excise exemption depends on that fact. The Court treated commercial production as the relevant benchmark under the notification and noted that the issue had not been examined by the excise authorities on the proper basis. It therefore declined to decide the matter on affidavits, set aside the earlier factual finding, and remitted the question to the competent authority for fresh determination after considering the relevant materials and giving the assessee a hearing.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court, in writ jurisdiction, should itself determine the date of commencement of commercial production for deciding eligibility to excise exemption, or leave that factual determination to the competent excise authority.

Analysis: The notification granting concession turned on the commencement of production, which had to be understood as commercial production. The record showed a dispute on when commercial production actually began, and that question had not been examined by the excise authorities on the correct basis. In proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Court declined to decide that contested factual issue on affidavits and held that such determination should be made by the competent authority after considering the relevant materials, including the letter relied upon by the assessee.

Conclusion: The Court set aside the factual finding fixing commercial production in 1981 and remitted the matter to the Assistant Collector to decide eligibility for exemption on the basis of the actual commencement of commercial production, after giving the assessee an opportunity of hearing.

Final Conclusion: The assessee obtained a remand for fresh consideration of exemption eligibility on the correct factual basis, and the earlier adverse factual determination was not sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ court should not finally determine a disputed question of fact, such as the date of commercial production, where the statutory or notification-based entitlement depends on that fact and the competent authority has not adjudicated it on the correct basis.

---