BAJAJ AUTO LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) "bajaj" is a by-word for many Indian Industrial Products. Among them are those on wheels, Two wheelers and Three wheelers as they are popularly referred to Manufacture of these wheeled vehicles entails enormous imports. Imported steel is itself a prominent component in the manufacturing activity of the petitioners Bajaj Auto Ltd. The petitioner-Company has its factories in Pune and Aurangabad. The basic pattern of manufacturing process or commercial practice is not substantially different.

(2.) THE manufactured products are exigible to excisable duty-Self-Removal procedure is convenient, alike for administration and the assessee. That was resorted to by petitioners as well. So long as the movements are correct, the accounts accurate and the assessment reasonable, everything will go smooth. Any doubt or dispute in the system will have its halting effect. The petitioner Company had a rub with the Department about the duty payable under the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ). The dispute was not in relation to the material imported nor in the final products taken out of the factories. It centred round the vistas of "waste"as the term is understood in Excise pariance in the relevant context.

(3.) THE matter had received attention at one stage by some on fairly high in the hierarchy. The decision was in favour of the petitioner Company. The passage of time and possession of further materials apparently prompted the Department to have a second thought on the issue. They took the view that a larger duty was due from the petitioner Company. The feel is not enough. A final verdict is necessary. Many steps have taken and many hurdles crossed, before a final verdict is reached. The very first one is for the Departmental authority of the lowest rung; he has to come to a definite, even though tentative, conclusion. Here again, the procedural safeguards-the hallmark of a fair regime of the Rule of Law-require effective and full opportunity being afforded to a person before even a paise is taken from his pocket. Issuance of a show cause notice is one such preliminary step for effectively ensuring the observance of the principles of natural justice. Ordinarily, no assessee could have a complaint on the issue of such a notice. He should only be too happy to have an opportunity to show his palm and his cards and to earn a good chit as it were, from the Department. The petitioner-Company felt otherwise. It has its own reason for feeling so. The very jurisdiction, according to the petitioner Company, for issue of such a notice was non-existent. If power be lacking, it is only an avoidable waste for the petitioner to wander along the corridors of office and to climb up the different and difficult steps in the difficult ladders of officialdom.