TMI Blog1983 (6) TMI 33X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -2-1981 the 1st respondent informed the petitioner that block or crump rubber, produced in the petitioner's factory, is liable to central excise duty under Tariff Item No. 68 of Central Excise Tariff and asked the petitioner to send certain details and particulars. The petitioner was also asked to explain why action should not be taken for not obtaining Central Excise Licence and clearing the goods without payment of duty. The petitioner sent a detailed objection dated 13-3-1981 to the 1st respondent. According to the petitioner they are not carrying on any manufacturing process and what they do is to purchase natural rubber and sell it after a minimum process of cleaning and drying. There is no manufacture of any goods in the factory so as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty to adduce evidence. 2. It is stated in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents dated 29th of March, 1983 that the products of the petitioner's factory are liable to Central Excise duty under Tariff Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. It is also stated in paragraph 3 of the counter-affidavit that there is no adverse order passed by the respondents against the petitioner. In paragraph 7 it is mentioned that Exts. P3 and P5 are still pending consideration before the 1st respondent and without waiting for an order in that behalf the petitioner was not justified in filing this O.P. 3. It is interesting to note, that in the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents in paragraph 2, it is asserted that the products of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s contended by the petitioner, there is no reason why the respondent should insist the petitioner for furnishing the details. If, on the other hand, the respondents hold the view that notwithstanding the objections raised in Exts. P3 and P5, as also the decision of the Appellate Collector referred to in Ext. P3, the petitioner is liable for excise duty, the petitioner should be told so definitely with reasons therefor. A speaking order is a pre-requisite before saddling the petitioner with the liability to pay Excise Duty. The respondents have merely asserted that the block or crump rubber produced in the petitioner's factory is liable for excise duty under Tariff Item No. 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. This is not sufficient. It is for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to insist that the petitioner should furnish certain details asked for. The procedure adopted is unwarranted. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the question as to whether the block or crump rubber produced in the petitioner's factory will come under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff is a jurisdictional fact. Only if there is some manufacture of production of goods which are liable to excise duty, the petitioner need file the details asked for and the respondents will have jurisdiction to make any levy on the petitioner. In one sense the contention of the petitioner's Counsel that the basic fact as to whether the particular commodity is liable to excise duty at all will be a jurisdictional fact if the word `jurisdiction' is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
