Court upholds excise duty notice challenge, stresses assessing officer's role. Petitioner granted response opportunity.

The High Court dismissed the petition challenging a show cause notice issued by the Collector of Customs and Central Excise regarding excise duty on manufactured items. The court emphasized that factual inquiries to determine excisability should be conducted by the assessing officer based on the petitioner's response and supporting documents. The court's jurisdiction in writs is limited to specific circumstances, and the petitioner was granted the opportunity to respond to the notice within a specified timeline. The assessing officer was directed to decide on the excisability issue considering the petitioner's reply and relevant legal principles.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to show cause notice issued by Collector, Customs and Central Excise regarding excise duty on manufactured items.

Analysis:
The petitioner, engaged in manufacturing fixed vegetable oil, received a show cause notice alleging fabrication and assembly of machinery items for enhancing the solvent extraction plant's capacity. The notice claimed the items attracted excise duty at 15% ad valorem. The assessing officer required the petitioner to respond to the notice to determine the duty liability. The petitioner challenged the notice via a writ under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

The High Court, after hearing both parties, found no merit in quashing the show cause notice. The court emphasized that factual inquiries to decide excisability must be conducted by the assessing officer based on the petitioner's response and supporting documents. The court's jurisdiction in writs is limited to cases where the notice is without jurisdiction, time-barred, or issued by an unauthorized authority. It cannot delve into factual inquiries reserved for the issuing authority.

The court highlighted the need for the petitioner to provide a detailed response to the notice to establish whether the items are excisable. The court cited precedents where the Supreme Court emphasized factual determinations by adjudicating authorities. The petitioner was granted the opportunity to reply to the notice within one month, with the assessing officer required to decide the issue within two months considering both the petitioner's response and relevant legal precedents.

In conclusion, the petition was dismissed, allowing the petitioner to respond to the show cause notice within a specified timeline. The assessing officer was directed to decide on the excisability issue based on the petitioner's reply and applicable legal principles. No costs were awarded, and any deposited security amount was to be refunded according to rules.

---