1997 (11) TMI 106

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rs at Pithampur in the backward district of Dhar. Petitioners have submitted that the excise duty is chargeable with reference to value. The valuation of excisable goods for the purpose of assessment of assessable value is determined in accordance with Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter shall be referred to as 'the Act'). Petitioners have further contended that under Rule 173C of Central Excise Rules, 1944, every assessee who manufactures goods which are chargeable to duty of excise on the basis of its value, has to file with the proper officer a price list showing the price of such goods and the trade discount along with such necessary particulars. 3. Petitioners have also urged that the respondents all alo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....(32) E.L.T. 8 (S.C.) [Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyalaya and Others]; (iv) 1978 (2) E.L.T. (J 632) (M.P.) [Universal Cables Ltd. v. Union of India and Others]; (v) 1987 (30) E.L.T. 62 (M.P.) [Dharamsi Morarji Chemical Co. Ltd. v. Union of India and Another]; (vi) 1990 (50) E.L.T. 15 (M.P.) [Hindustan Electro Graphites Limited v. Union of India]; (vii) 1991 (53) E.L.T. 278 (M.P.) [Jayant Vitamins Ltd. v. Union of India]; (viii) M.P. No. 1817/1991 [M/s. Sonic Electrochem Pvt. Ltd. and Another v. Union of India and 4 Others]; (ix) M.P. No. 779/89 [Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. Union of India and Another], decided on 8-9-1994 [1997 (95) E.L.T. 212 (M.P.)]; (x) 1985 (22) E.L.T. 732 (M.P.) [Tata Exports Ltd. v. Un....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....icee should be directed to appear before the authority concerned and to show cause. 11. In the light of the aforesaid contentions raised by the parties, I have heard them at length and perused the record. 12. The fact remains that this petition has been preferred only against a show cause notice issued to it. Petitioners have so far not filed any reply to the said show cause notice. Petitioner's apprehension is that the said so called notice has been issued to it on the basis of the judgment of Bombay High Court reported in 1984 (18) E.L.T. 172 [Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. P. Ltd. v. Union of India and Others], which has been set aside by the Supreme Court. 13. Thus, the very jurisdiction of the authority issuing notice has been challe....