Assessable value under excise law must be decided on proper facts, not by the writ court, where manufacturing arrangement is disputed.

Determination of assessable value under excise law depends on proper factual inquiry into the manufacturing arrangement and the relationship between the parties. Where the record does not show whether the goods were manufactured by the seller on its own account or on behalf of the buyer, and whether the parties were related persons, those questions must first be examined by the statutory excise authority rather than decided by the writ court. The matter was therefore remitted for fresh adjudication after applying the governing Supreme Court principles to the relevant agreements and factual position.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ court should itself determine the assessable value of the goods and the status of the buyer as manufacturer, or require the excise authorities to reconsider the matter in the light of the governing principles laid down by the Supreme Court.

Analysis: The controversy turned on the application of settled principles governing assessable value under excise law, including whether the manufacturing arrangement showed that the goods were produced by the seller on its own account or on behalf of the buyer, and whether the buyer and seller were related persons. The record before the excise authorities had not been examined on the basis of the relevant agreements, and the authorities had proceeded mainly on the assumption of an arm's length arrangement. The Court held that those factual questions had to be decided in the first instance by the statutory authorities and not by the writ court, especially where the effect of the buyer lifting the entire production required proper factual examination. The impugned direction setting aside the Deputy Collector's order was not interfered with, but the matter required reconsideration in the light of the Supreme Court decisions governing the issue.

Conclusion: The writ court declined to undertake the factual adjudication itself and directed the Deputy Collector to pass a fresh order after considering the relevant Supreme Court decisions and the factual position.

Final Conclusion: The matter was sent back for fresh adjudication by the excise authority, with the legal principles on manufacture, related persons, and assessable value to be applied on a proper factual inquiry.

Ratio Decidendi: Where determination of assessable value depends on disputed facts concerning the manufacturing arrangement and the relationship between the parties, the statutory authority must first decide those facts; the writ court should not itself undertake that inquiry.

---