UNION OF INDIA Vs. BAJAJ TEMPO LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) These appeals by special leave arise out of writ petitions filed under article 226 of the Constitution in the High court for quashing show-cause notices issued to the assessees. The assessee in each of these cases denies its liability to pay the excise duty demanded and instead of replying to the show-cause notices issued by the Assistant Collector, filed the writ petitions which have been allowed. The justification for filing the writ petitions given by learned counsel for the respondents/assessees, is that a trade notice which was issued left no scope with the departmental authorities to accept the assessees' contention. In our opinion, this is no ground to justify the filing of writ petitions in any of these cases.

(3.) It is clear that the question of exigibility to the duty demanded depends on the facts found relating to the process by which the end-product on which duty is demanded came into existence. The items in question are several and in each case a finding has to be given on the facts pertaining to the particular item. This has not been done by any authority in respect of any of these items or goods. There is thus no finding of fact on which the question of exigibility to excise duty on any of the items or goods can be decided. The appropriate course for the assessee in each case was to reply to the show-cause notice enabling the authorities to record their findings of fact in each case and then if necessary, the matter should have been proceeded to the tribunal and thereafter to this court. The trade notice was not decisive of the question either before the tribunal or in this court.