V ANANTHRAMAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition, the petitioners have challenged the validity of the show cause notice dated 29th September, 1988 (Exhibit S to the petition) issued by the Central Excise Authorities, in so far as it seeks to levy penalty upon the petitioners under Rule 209-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (Rules for short ).

(2.) ORDINARILY, we would not have taken up the onerous responsibility of adjudicating the show cause notice on our self in exercise of writ jurisdiction, but in the facts of this case, we are satisfied that the condition precedent for invoking Rule 209-A of the Central Excise Rules being not satisfied question of taking any penal action against the petitioners does not arise at all and hence instead of permitting the authorities to adjudicate we have decided to hear the matter on merits itself.

(3.) THE facts having bearing of the subject matter of the present petition are as follows: In the year 1985, relevant to the present petition, the petitioners were holding high ranking position as Production Manager, Deputy General Manager and General Manager (Taxation) in Larson and Tubro Limited (hereinafter Company for short ). The said company in the year 1985 decided to manufacture programmable controllers in collaboration with M/s. Yaskawa Electrical Manufacturing Company Limited, Japan. The said programmable controllers or programmable logic controllers are electronic automatic data processing machines which according to the petitioners were classifiable under Tariff Item No. 33dd of the First Schedule of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 (Act for short ). These machines monitor a given situation or a set of situations in a plant or a machine or equipment and give corresponding information and instructions.