TMI Blog1997 (5) TMI 63X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pression of opinion by the Central Board of Excise and Customs to the effect that woollen fibre manufactured in Draft-o-matic machine are classifiable under Tariff Item No. 43 of the Central Excise Tariff. The petitioners also felt aggrieved by the direction dated 5-7-1985 issued by the Inspector, Central Excise, Range I, Kundli, Sonepat, by which he has directed the petitioners to obtain a licence after paying duty as per Tariff Item No. 43 of the Central Excise Tariff. The contention of the petitioners is that they were manufacturing the woollen yarn which was covered under Item 18-B(i). It is claimed that product was exempted from duty vide notification No. 224/79-C.E., dated 13-7-1979. Despite that the Excise Department has taken the vi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ken by the respondents, the petitioners filed this writ petition and challenged the various actions thus taken by the respondents. 2.In the written statement filed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Rohtak, it was contended that the petitioners are manufacturing "carded gilled woollen slivers". It was further contended that the product manufactured by the petitioners is a combination of various fibres into one by strengthening it to make out woollen slivers into uniform thickness. It was further contended that sample of the product manufactured by the petitioners had been subjected to the test by the Chemical Analyser, Central Excise New Delhi, by taking sample on 18-10-1979 and his opinion was that the woollen slivers manufact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g to the writ jurisdiction because the Excise officers entrusted with the job of adjudication of the duty would not take any different view from one expressed by the Central Board of Excise and, therefore, it would be a futile exercise to direct the petitioners to the departmental remedies. 4.As against that, the Counsel for the respondents submitted that the decision by the Excise officers is based on material on record. Further, during the pendency of the decision on the show cause notices issued by the Excise Department, the petitioners were not entitled to file a writ, and their remedy was to thrash the matter departmentally. 5.The counsel for the petitioners brought my attention to the communication from the Under Secretary, Centr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . No authority however high placed can control the decision of a judicial or a quasi-judicial authority. That is the essence of our judicial system. There is no provision in the Act empowering the Board to issue directions to the assessing authorities or the appellate authorities in the matter of deciding disputes between the persons who are called upon to pay duty and the department. It is true that the assessing authorities as well as the appellate authorities are judges in their own cause; yet when they are called upon to decide disputes arising under the Act they must act independently and impartially. They cannot be said to act independently if their judgment is controlled by the directions given by other. Then it is a misnomer to call ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etitioners that the expression of opinion at Annexure P-5 would in any way come in the adjudication of their case by the authorities who would be discharging the quasi-judicial function. In the context of this, it may further be noted that even long before the opinion of the chemical analyser was received on 17-12-1982 and the expression of opinion of the Central Board of Excise at Annexure P-5 dated 12-1-1985, show cause notices dated 22-11-1982 and 26-11-1982 have been issued, among 25 notices as mentioned in Annexure P-2. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Excise Officials entrusted with the job of assessment of excise duty were following some instructions given at Annexure P-5. 7.The Counsel for the petitioners made elaborate submi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pproach to alternative remedy in the same department which has already taken the view. It was submitted that, therefore, this Court should examine the position and decide the matter. However, as stated above, it is nonetheless going to be an ascertainment of fact as to whether the product in question responds to the description given in Item No. 43. This aspect can be very well looked into when the matter is before the Excise Authorities performing the quasi-judicial functions. The Counsel for the respondents brought my attention to a case of Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa, A.I.R. 1983 S.C 603. In that case their Lordships observed that when alternative remedy was available, the petitioner should have resorted to it before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
