2011 (8) TMI 1150

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....djudicating authority has no jurisdiction to decide the facets that have been urged by the petitioner and, therefore, it would have been appropriate on its part to lancet the notice to show cause and not to relegate the petitioner to the said authority to deal with the lis in question. 3. Learned counsel would submit that the facts are tell tale and when disputed questions of facts are not involved, it was in the fitness of things to exercise power of judicial review and to quash the proceeding in toto. 4. Mr. A.S. Chandhiok, learned Additional Solicitor General and Mr. Mukesh Anand, learned standing counsel for the Central Excise and Customs, per contra, submitted that this Court has adequately dealt with the aforesaid aspe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....iff Act, 1985 as amounting to manufacture. They also rely upon Note 6 of Section XVII of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, which stipulates that "in respect of goods covered by this Section, conversion of an article which is incomplete or unfinished but having the essential character of the complete or finished articles (sic.) into complete or finished articles shall amount to manufacture." 9. It is clear from the aforesaid facts that two conflicting positions have been adopted by the petitioner No. 1 company and the Excise Department, Faridabad on the question whether or not the activities of the petitioner No. 1 company at Faridabad amount to manufacture within the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the excise duty is payable o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Delhi and the billing is done from Delhi. It is noticed that in the writ petition it has been stated that the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 function under the supervision of the Chief Commissioner, Central Excise, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi and the petitioner No. 1 had approached the said authority. This, by itself, may not confer jurisdiction on this Court to entertain this writ petition, unless there was involvement and their role is material and a part of cause of action. However, since the writ petition has been pending since 2010, we are not inclined to examine this aspect in further detail. The respondents are, though, not precluded from raising the issue of jurisdiction if the petitioners come again by way of writ petition to thi....