9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 1107X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The petitioner, as per the show cause notices, is engaged in manufacture of aluminum doors, windows, partitions, frameless doors, curtain walls etc. According to show cause notices, the items manufactured by the petitioner are dutiable and fall under the heading 7610 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. 3. The contention of the petitioner on the other hand is that it is engaged in doing work of structural glazing (curtain walls) and cladding which cannot be regarded as identifiable commercial products in a factory or in any other manufacturing premises. It is alleged that the said activity involves only erection and installation of curtain walls and cladding and not manufacturing and, therefore, no excisable goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nces, the Revenue authorities should not depart from the previous decision. There should be some material or reason to make a departure. Certainty and consistency are hall-marks of good tax administration. 6. In the present case, only show cause notices have been issued and there has not been any determination or decision by the authorities. The stand taken by the respondent in the counter affidavit is that the matter requires examination and consideration in view of the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Mahindra and Mahindra (supra). The contentions raised by both sides require consideration and debate. The exact nature of activities undertaken and the method and technique involved in the "assembly/manufacture" h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ilable i.e. by way of filing a reply or appeal. It was held: " 12. There can be no doubt that in matters of taxation, it is inappropriate for the High Court to interfere in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution either at the stage of the show-cause notice or at the stage of assessment where alternative remedy by way of filing a reply or appeal, as the case may be, is available but these are the limitations imposed by the courts themselves in exercise of their jurisdiction and they are not matters of jurisdictional factors. Had the High Court declined to interfere at the stage of show-cause notice, perhaps this Court would not have been inclined to entertain the special leave petition; when the High Court did exerci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e should be rare and not in a routine manner. Mere assertion by the writ petitioner that notice was without jurisdiction and/or abuse of process of law would not suffice. It should be prima facie established to be so. Where factual adjudication would be necessary, interference is ruled out." 9. As of now, there is no determination of the questions raised even by the authorities. No final view has been taken by the respondent. The situation is still fluid. It cannot be disputed that the respondent i.e. the Commissioner of Central Excise has jurisdiction to decide and go into the said questions by issue of notice under Section 11A of the Act. The said authority can adjudicate and decide the objections and contentions raised by the pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
