Statutory authority for excise assessment prevails over trade notices, and writ relief remains available against unauthorized levy demands.

Assessment and levy of excise duty must rest on the statute or rules having force of law, and an executive trade notice cannot add to, alter, or control the taxable incidents or exemption conditions for shoddy woollen yarn. The Calcutta HC noted that the notice, lacking statutory authority, could not validly govern classification or duty liability and was therefore unenforceable. It also held that pending appeals against individual assessments did not bar a writ challenge to the legality of the trade notice itself, because the grievance was against unauthorized executive interference with assessment according to law. The petitioner was entitled to protection against assessment based on that notice.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the trade notice issued by the excise authority had statutory force and could govern assessment and levy of duty on shoddy woollen yarn. (ii) Whether the petitioner could invoke writ jurisdiction to challenge the trade notice notwithstanding pending appellate proceedings against individual assessments.

Issue (i): Whether the trade notice issued by the excise authority had statutory force and could govern assessment and levy of duty on shoddy woollen yarn.

Analysis: Assessment under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 had to be made in a judicial or quasi-judicial manner and in accordance with the statute or rules having statutory force. Executive or administrative directions could not add to, alter, or control the statutory basis of levy or assessment. The trade notice prescribed conditions and specifications for shoddy yarn without statutory authority, and therefore could not validly regulate classification or duty liability.

Conclusion: The trade notice was invalid and could not be enforced against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner could invoke writ jurisdiction to challenge the trade notice notwithstanding pending appellate proceedings against individual assessments.

Analysis: The existence of pending appeals against assessment orders did not bar a challenge to an allegedly unauthorized trade notice being used to enforce duty demands. Where the grievance was that the executive authority was interfering with the legal right to be assessed according to law, the writ court could grant relief. The challenge was directed to the legality of the trade notice itself, not merely to the individual assessment orders.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable.

Final Conclusion: The respondents had no authority to enforce the trade notice in making assessments or levying duty, and the petitioner was entitled to protection against assessment based on that notice.

Ratio Decidendi: In excise matters, duty and assessment must rest on statutory authority or rules having force of law, and an executive trade notice cannot add to or control the taxable incidents or conditions of exemption.

---