TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (4) TMI 370
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment") issued six show cause notices to the petitioner for different period claiming differential duty of excise. In the show cause notices, it was alleged that the petitioner has collected processing charges in excess of the processing charges shown in the cost construction statements filed along with the price lists and has thus suppressed the facts and under declared the value of the processed cotton fabrics in the price lists filed and approved and has cleared the goods as per the details furnished in the annexure enclosed to the show cause notices. It was further mentioned in the show cause notices that short levy by way of suppression of facts should be recovered from the petitioner and therefore, the department issued the show cause ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....notices. Thirdly, it is contended that the period for which show cause notices were issued, are much prior to 1980 and it is well beyond the period of limitation prescribed under the Act. Therefore, show cause notices are without jurisdiction. Further, the learned counsel would submit that there has been violation of the principles of natural justice and hence, the writ petition is the appropriate remedy. 4. Per contra, the learned standing counsel for the respondents would submit that the writ petition itself is not maintainable, since the issue involved relates to a dispute regarding valuation of goods which were manufactured and if the petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the only remedy is to approach the Hon'ble ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le value of the processed fabric would be the value of the job work done plus the manufacturing profit and the manufacturing expenses whatever these may be which will either to be included in the price at the factory gate or deemed to be the price at the factory gate for the processed fabric and that the factory gate here mean the deemed factory gate as if the processed fabric was sold by the processor. Therefore, it is contended that the orders passed by the authorities below are fully justified and since there was suppression of facts, the department is not entitled to invoke Section 11(A) with respect to extended period and the show cause notices were rightly issued by the Superintendent and adjudicated by the Deputy Commissioner. 6.&em....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e litigant and the writ court could decide the matter on merits. However, such principle cannot be applied to the facts of the present case, since under Section 35(G) of the Act, there is a specific- embargo contained under the Act for this Court to entertain appeals with regard to the dispute relating to the determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty of excise or to the value of goods for purposes of assessment. Therefore, this court is of the firm view that it would not be justified for this Court to go into the aspect as regards the valuation of goods, since it would tantamount usurping power of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which cannot be done. Hence, on the question of maintainability, this Court has no hesitation....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... applicability of Valuation Rules and proceed to pass orders on merits. Therefore, there is no error on the part of the original authority in deciding the matter bases on the Valuation Rules. Consequently, the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order-in-original proceeds entirely on different aspect than what was projected in the show cause notices, is not tenable. 12. On the question of limitation, it is noticed that the show cause notices were issued alleging that there has been suppression of facts. If the same is established, in terms of Section 11(A) of the Act, the department is fully justified in invoking the extended period of limitation. The authorities below have concurrently held that there h....