AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Petitioners by Shri Y.S. Dharmadhikaii and Shri JJ Bhatt, They are heard on the question of admission.
Shri A.P. Tare for respondents.
This petition is directed against a show cause notice dated 19-8-1973 and thereafter another show cause notice dated 2-4-1985 issued to the petitioners to show cause as to why the goods manufactured by the petitioners be not classified under the tariff item indicated in the notices. After this petition was filed, another show cause notice dated 27-2-1986 is also stated to have been served on the petitioners to the same effect.
Admittedly there is adequate efficacious remedy available to the petitioners under the Act to assail the department''s contention mentioned in the show cause notices. In this connection, reference to the several amendments made in the Act in 1982 are also material inasmuch as they provide the remedy of approaching the High Court and thereafter even the Supreme Court by way of an appeal by resorting to the procedure prescribed in the Act. This alone is sufficient for us to decline to entertain this petition against a mere show cause notice.
Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the reply filed on behalf of the respondents in obedience to the notice given to them of this petition, indicates that all the departmental authorities and even the respondent No. 2 have made up their mind about classification of these goods and, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by resorting to the remedies available under the Act. We are unable to accept this contention.
An affidavit filed along with the reply of the respondents is only of the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, and no higher authority, much less of any officer on behalf of the Central Board of Excise and Customs, respondent No. 2. Merely because the return mentions that it is on behalf of respondents 1 to 5, it cannot be said that the Central Board of Excise and Customs, respondent No. 2, has also made up its mind on the question as suggested by the learned counsel for the petitioners. In our opinion, it is not fair to draw any such inference in respact of respondent No. 2 as suggested by learned counsel for the petitioners. That apart, the Act also provides the remedies of approaching this Court as well as the Supreme Court in the manner provided by the Act.
We are, therefore, unable to entertain this petition for exercise of our writ jurisdiction merely against the show cause notices. The petition is, therefore, dismissed summarily.