1996 (9) TMI 146

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ny other writ order or direction prohibiting the respondents or any of their employees or agents from seeking to levy excise duty upon kraft pockets not manufactured by the petitioner No. 1; (iii) pass such other orders or directions as this Hon. Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case, and for this act of kindness, the petitioners shall, as in duty bound, ever pray. 2.Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that petitioner No. 1 is a leading manufacturer and distributor of office equipments. One of the items produced and distributed by the petitioner No. 1 is Visible Card Record Cabinets (VCRC). This VCRC is used, inter alia, for the maintenance of record cards and is a popular office aid used for ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r of taxation in identical fact - situation. Shri Neema has opposed these contentions. 7.The Counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on : (i) 1978 E.L.T. (J 632) (M.P.); Universal Cables Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors. (ii) 1990 (50) E.L.T. 15 (M.P.); Hindustan Electro Graphites Ltd. v. Union of India. (iii) 1991 (53) E.L.T. 278 (M.P.); Jayant Vitamins Ltd. v. Union of India. (iv) M.P. No. 779/89; Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. Union of India. (v) M.P. No. 1817/91; Electro Chem v. Union of India. (vi) A.I.R. 1950 SC 124; Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras. (vii) A.I.R. 1959 SC 725; K.K. Kochunni v. State of Madras. (viii) A.I.R. 1971 Bombay 56; G.V. Godse v. Union of India. (ix) A.I.R. 1972 Pat. 93; N.P. Mathur v. State ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ng terms : "An executive agency must be rigorously held to the standards by which it professes its action to be judged ........ He that takes the procedural sword shall perish with the Sword." 11."Show cause notices" are not the end, but beginning of the matter. "Absence of jurisdiction" and "erroneous exercise of jurisdiction" are not liable to be intermixed. It is not suggested that notice is not under the relevant Act or Provision or not by the proper authority. Writ Court, these days, is receiving matters which can appropriately be contested at other forums fixed by relevant Acts. Is it not the time, ripe indeed, to exercise restraint, halt rush and push such cases towards their proper destination? The calendar of Court is quite c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....natives. Truth must be seen to triumph. 14.This Court in M.P. No. 2230/93; 1995 (77) E.L.T. 74 (M.P.) (Grasim Industries Ltd. v. The Collector of Customs and another), filed against show cause notice had declined to examine merits and had left the petitioner to contest the matter before the authorities. The order dated 27-1-1995 was upheld by the Letters Patent Bench and SLP was dismissed by the Apex Court. Nothing substantial is urged to take a different view in the matter. Law is a leveller and attempts to attain uniformity. 15.I, therefore, do not examine the question of validity of show cause notice (Annexure P/2) though debated, and held that the decisions relied upon are distinguishable. There are no exceptional circumstances. P....