Doctrine of merger bars writ challenge to excise demand; natural justice and factual assessment objections also failed.

An excise writ challenge was held not maintainable because the original demand had merged into the appellate and revisional orders, and relief in writ jurisdiction could not be sought without challenging those higher orders and impleading the relevant authorities. On natural justice, the levy under Rule 9(2) was upheld since the assessee received notice, filed a written reply, was personally heard, and had access to seized materials; cross-examination was not treated as essential on these facts. The duty assessment was also left undisturbed because the dispute turned on factual questions about excisability and production, which were not suitable for writ determination, and the assessment was not shown to be arbitrary on the record.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the appellate and revisional orders and the doctrine of merger. (ii) Whether the demand and levy under Rule 9(2) were vitiated for breach of natural justice. (iii) Whether the assessment of duty was arbitrary or unsupported by material.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the appellate and revisional orders and the doctrine of merger.

Analysis: The demand order passed by the excise authority was carried in appeal and revision. The appellate authority rejected the appeal for non-deposit of the adjudged dues, and the revisional authority rejected the revision. Once the appeal was rejected and the revisional order was passed, the original demand merged in the higher orders. Relief in writ jurisdiction could not be granted without challenging the revisional order and impleading the authorities that passed it. As those authorities were outside territorial jurisdiction, the petition was not maintainable.

Conclusion: The objection to maintainability was upheld against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand and levy under Rule 9(2) were vitiated for breach of natural justice.

Analysis: The statute and rules did not prescribe any elaborate procedure for levy under Rule 9(2). The assessee was given notice to show cause, submitted a written reply, and was also personally heard. The materials seized from the premises were made available, and there was no allegation of bias. A right of cross-examination was not treated as an indispensable requirement on these facts, particularly where the assessee did not seek to lead supporting evidence or identify witnesses to rebut the allegations.

Conclusion: No violation of natural justice was established, and the challenge failed against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the assessment of duty was arbitrary or unsupported by material.

Analysis: The department relied on the condition of the factory, the stock found during search, the seized records, and the assessee's own material indicating production of rayon or artificial silk fabrics with cotton. The court treated the question whether the goods were excisable and the quantum of production as disputed questions of fact. Such disputes were not suitable for determination in writ proceedings, especially when the statutory remedies had been invoked but not effectively pursued. The assessment, including the reduced computation basis adopted by the authority, was not shown to be arbitrary on the materials before the court.

Conclusion: The assessment was not interfered with and the challenge failed against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and, in any event, none of the substantive challenges to the excise levy or assessment succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an excise demand is carried through appeal and revision, the original order merges in the higher orders, and a writ petition challenging only the original order is not maintainable; disputed factual questions and adequate opportunity of reply will not justify interference in writ jurisdiction.

---