1982 (6) TMI 51

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Central Excise Act was payable by the manufacturer. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioners have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the said order on various grounds set out in the petition. After notice of this petition was served upon the respondents, the Superintendent of Central Excise issued to the petitioners notice (Exhibit G to this petition) to show cause why central excise duty as stated in paragraph (a) of the said notice and as to why penalty as stated in paragraph (b) of the said notice should not be demanded and recovered. On receipt of the said show cause notice, the petitioners amended this petition challenging the validity of the said notice and seeking reliefs also on ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ereof. Submission is that the aforesaid Division Bench ruling as also the rulings referred to and relied upon in the said Division Bench ruling cover the case of the petitioners in their favour. In these circumstances, it would be a futile exercise to go through the gamut of departmental procedures when this Court has already decided a virtually similar matter in the above ruling in Garware Nylons' case. 3. There is substance in the contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioners. Going through the ruling in Garware Nylons' case I find that the ratio thereof does support the petitioners' contention. I also find that the cases relied upon in Garware Nylons' case also go to support the case and contentions of the petitioners....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....itioners filed the instant writ petition. And when pending this petition show cause notice was issued to the petitioners, the petitioners challenged the same by way of amendment to this petition. In these circumstances, it would not be just and fair to the excise authorities to decide the matter merely by placing reliance on the Division Bench ruling in Garware Nylons' case. Justice does require that the excise authorities must have materials and evidence before them, on the basis whereof the said authorities themselves may come to a conclusion different from the one which they have presently reached. It would also be just and fair that the petitioners should be given full-fledged opportunity to satisfy the excise authorities in the aforesa....