https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43029 The Court declined to intervene under Article 226 in a case challenging a show cause notice for alleged duty evasion based on service contract charges included in the assessable value for excise duty calculation. The Court noted that evidence supported the inclusion of service charges in the assessable value, emphasizing that it was not within its purview to assess the sufficiency of evidence. The Court rejected claims of bias within the Department and denied the petitioners' request for adjudication by a specific officer. The Court discharged the rule with costs, affirming the Department's assurance to provide necessary materials for adjudication proceedings. en-us Fri, 02 Aug 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 15 Jun 2010 17:02:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43029 The Court declined to intervene under Article 226 in a case challenging a show cause notice for alleged duty evasion based on service contract charges included in the assessable value for excise duty calculation. The Court noted that evidence supported the inclusion of service charges in the assessable value, emphasizing that it was not within its purview to assess the sufficiency of evidence. The Court rejected claims of bias within the Department and denied the petitioners' request for adjudication by a specific officer. The Court discharged the rule with costs, affirming the Department's assurance to provide necessary materials for adjudication proceedings. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 02 Aug 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43029