Are you looking for a legal research tool ?
Get Started
Do check other products like LIBIL, a legal due diligence tool to get a litigation check report and Case Management tool to monitor and collaborate on cases.

Union Of India v. Bajaj Tempo Limited And Others

Union Of India v. Bajaj Tempo Limited And Others

(Supreme Court Of India)

Civil Appeal No. 5238-5244 Of 1997 | 29-07-1997

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

4. We are satisfied that the question of excise duty which has been raised in these matters can be decided only after recording the findings of fact in each case in respect of goods or items given by the appropriate authority5. These matters must, therefore, go back to the Assistant Collector for decision of questions of fact. It would be open to the assessee in each case to submit its reply to the adjudicating authority within four weeks. The adjudicating authority would then proceed to decide the same in accordance with law. The further remedy thereafter would be available to the aggrieved party in accordance with law. These appeals are allowed in the manner indicated above.

Advocate List
  • For
Bench
  • HON'BLE JUSTICE B. N. KIRPAL
  • HON'BLE JUSTICE J. S. VERMA (CJI)
Eq Citations
  • 1997 (94) ELT 285 (SC)
  • (1998) 9 SCC 281
  • JT 1998 (9) SC 138
  • LQ/SC/1997/1042
Head Note

Excise — Show-cause notice — Validity of — Excise duty — Liability to pay — Excigibility — Question of — Dependence on facts found relating to process by which end-product on which duty is demanded came into existence — Trade notice — Effect of — Held, trade notice was not decisive of question either before Tribunal or in Supreme Court — Question of excise duty can be decided only after recording findings of fact in each case in respect of goods or items given by appropriate authority — Matters must go back to Assistant Collector for decision of questions of fact — Limitation — Limitation Act, 1963, S. 14