TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1981 (9) TMI 109
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... provisions of the Companies Act and have their registered office in Bombay. The petitioners inter alia carry on business of manufacture, sale and purchase of various types of footwears and parts thereof. The petitioners own factories in Maharashtra and in the course of business also purchase foot-wears from other manufacturers and dealers and re-sell the same to the public at its retail shops located throughout India. The petitioners claim that they have no connection whatsoever with the manufacture of footwears or manufacturing activities of their suppliers. 3. An excise duty is levied on footwear and parts thereof at the rates set out in the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred as the Act). The ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cturer in one or more factories; including the precincts thereof, wherein not more than 49 workers are working, or were working on any day of the preceding 12 months; and (ii) The total equivalent of power used in the manufacture of such footwear by or on behalf of a manufacturer in one or more factories does not exceed 2 Horse Power. Explanation. - Where footwear manufactured by a manufacturer is affixed with the brand or trade name, registered or not, of another manufacturer or is purchased by another manufacturer, it shall be deemed to have been manufactured by or on behalf of such other manufacturer. (88/77) &....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... have been manufactured by and on behalf of such manufacturer. The notice further states that the petitioners have got manufactured and purchased footwear from the factories appended in the list, but removed them without payment of duty. The footwear alleged to have been removed without payment of duty was during the period from May 9, 1977 to August 9, 1977. The petitioners sent reply on November 7, 1977 and a further reply on January 13, 1978. The petitioners pointed out that the show cause notice was issued on the strength of explanation to the Notification dated May 9, 1977 and that explanation was struck down by judgment of the Patna High Court reported in 1978 (2) E.L.T. (J 211) in the case of Bata Co. Ltd. v. Union of India. The peti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....esisted the relief sought in the petition on two counts. The learned Counsel submitted that the petition filed on the original side of this court is not maintainable as the dispute involved in the petition is not one which substantially arise within the limits of Greater Bombay. The learned Counsel placed reliance upon Rule 636 framed by this Court and submitted that the petition ought to have been filed on the Appellate Side of this Court. It was urged that the show cause notice was issued by the Excise Officer posted at Agra and the dispute was in respect of purchase made by the petitioners from the factories situated within the limits of Agra. It was urged that as the entire dispute arose within the limits of Agra, the mere fact that the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arned Counsel that though the explanation to the Notification was struck down by Patna High Court, it is permissible for the Department to take steps independently of the explanation. The learned Counsel relied upon the contents of the show cause notice and submitted that all the relevant material was pointed out in the show cause notice itself and there is no bar for the Department to proceed for recovery of escaped duty against the petitioners. It is not possible to accept this submission. In the first instance it is not permissible to split up the show cause notice in the manner suggested by Shri Dhanuka, but even assuming that it can be done so, I find that in the present case it is not the claim of the respondents that they desired to ....