JUDGMENT
G.G. Sohani, C.J.
1. This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
2. The material facts giving rise to this petition, briefly, as follows: –
(i) The petitioner No. 1 is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, and carries on the business of manufacturing and selling cigarettes and smoking tobaccos throughout India, The petitioner-Company owns and operates five cigarette factories, including one at Basudeopur, district Munger, in the State of Bihar,
(ii) During the period from 1st October, 1975, to 28th February, 1383, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the relevant period’) excise duty was chargeable on the cigarettes manufactured by the petitioner-Company with reference to value to be computed according to the provisions of Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act. 1944, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and the Rules made thereunder. The petitioner-Company, therefore, filed price lists showing cum-duty wholesale price of its products charged by the petitioner-Company to the wholesale dealers, who were shown to be not related persons and deducting therefrom post manufacturing expenses (hereinafter referred to as ‘PME’) for the purpose of working out assessable value and the duty payable on the basis of such assessable value. In the writ petitions filed by the petitioner-Company in this Court (C.W.J.C. Nos. 939 of 1974, 1233 of 1974, 1252 of 1974 and 5327 of 1974) it has been held by this Court that expenses, which are in the nature of post manufacturing expenses, can be deducted from the wholesale price to arrive at the assessable value for the purpose of computing excise duty payable under the Act. Aggrieved by that decision the Union of India has preferred appeals before the Supreme Court and those appeals are pending. Subject to the decision of the Supreme Court, therefore, excise duty was provisionally assessed and paid by the petitioner-Company on the basis of assessable value of goods derived from the cum duty wholesale price shown to have been charged by the petitioner-Company to the wholesale dealers and declared to be the sole consideration for the sale,
(iii) Subsequently, on an investigation conducted by the Preventive wing of the Collectorate, Patna, it transpired that the price at which the goods were sold by the petitioner-Company to the wholesale dealers was not the sole consideration for sale and that there was a scheme to evade payment of appropriate excise duty. Therefore, the petitioner-Company was called upon by the Assistant Collector (Preventive) Central Excise, Patna, to show cause to the Collector, Central Excise, within 30 days from the date of receipt of the notice.
(i) why in terms of Proviso (iii) to Clause (a) of Sub-section (i) of Section 4 of the Act, the assessable value of cigarettes manufactured and cleared by them from 1-10-1975 onwards should not be deemed to be the price at which the so-called wholesale dealers who are ‘related persons’ sell the goods in the course of wholesale trade to the so-called secondary wholesale dealers (duty of excise and other taws, Included if any, duly abated) and why duty should not be assessed and recovered on that basis and the consequential differential duty demanded from them:
(ii) why, alternatively, and without prejudice to the requirement of Clause (i) above, the wholesale price professed to be charged by the Company for ex-factory delivery to the so called wholesale dealers not constituting the sole consideration for sale of goods and therefore the provisions of Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act being attracted, the assessable value of the said goods should not be fixed in terms of Rule 7 read with Rule 5 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 1975, and duty assessed on that basis and the consequential difference in duty demanded from them:
(iii) why, without prejudice to the requirement at disuses (i) and (ii) above, the expenses on freight, insurance, distribution, etc, having fraudulently been transferred to the so-called wholesale dealers (and claimed to be incurred by the so-called whole sale dealers), deductions of which has been claimed by the Company in the price lists filed by them from 1-10-1975 onwards as the so-called post-manufacturing expenses, should not be disallowed and duty assessed on that basis and consequential difference in duty demanded from them ; and,
(iv) why, for having knowingly and deliberately misdeclared the wholesale price of cigarettes actually charged to their so-called wholesale dealers and for having falsely claimed abatement on account of so-called post-manufacturing expenses for distribution, insurance etc., contrary to their declaration in the price lists in the pro forma prescribed by the Collector, Central Excise, Patna, as envisaged in Rule 173-C, that the particulars therein furnished are true and complete to the best of their knowledge and belief, thereby contravening the provisions of Rule 175-C, a penalty should not be imposed on them under Rule 173-Q(i) of the Central Excise Rules 1944 and why the land, building, plants and machinery material or other things used by them in connection with the manufacture and production, storage, removal or disposal of such cigarettes and any other excisable goods on such land or in such building, produced or manufactured with such plant, machinery, material or thing should not be confiscated under the provisions of Sub-rule (?) of Rule 173 Q ibid.
Similar show cause notices were also issued to the petitioner-Company in respect of its factories at Bangalore and Saharanpur. The petitioner Company showed cause denying the various allegations contained in the show cause notice and requested for personal hearing. To decide matters arising out of the aforesaid show cases notices, the Central Board of Excise and Customs, in exercise of powers conferred by notification No. 159/84-CE dated 10-7-1984, assigned by order No. 1 of 1984 dated 10th September, 1984, adjudication proceedings initiated by the issue of the above said show cause notices to the Director of Inspection in the Directorate of Inspection and Audit (Customs) and Central Excise) New Delhi, as Collector of Central Excise.
(iv) The petitioner-Company was heard and after taking into consideration the material on record the Director of Inspection (hereinafter referred to as the adjudicating authority) by his order dated the 10th April, 1986, found as follows:
(a) the company and its was are not ‘related persons within the meaning of Section 4(4)(e) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944:
(b) the price at which the company sold the cigarettes to its was not the sole consideration for sale:
(c) the assessable value(s) of the cigarettes has to be determined in accordance with the provisions of Rule 5 of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975:
(d) for the purpose of determining the value under the said Rule 5-
(i) freight element (whether actual or equalised) cannot be added,;
(ii) Similarly, cost of CFC cannot be added:
(iii) advertisements and sales promotion expenses incurred by the was shall be added ; and
(iv) similarly, interest including that on the security deposits made by the was shall be added:
(e) no deduction whatsoever on account of the supposed duty shall be made from the advertisement and sales promotion expenses and interest, while adding these to the price.
(v) In view of the aforesaid findings the adjudicating authority passed the following order
(a) pending provisional assessments shall be finalised by the respective proper officers and where the assessments had already been finalised, differential duty demanded, on the basis of the revised assessable value(s) of the cigarettes, keeping in view the findings above, and the Company shall pay the differential duty (whether on finalisation of the provisional assessments or otherwise as aforesaid ; and
(b) penalty of Rs. 1,00,00,000 (Rupees one crore only) is imposed on the company under Rule 173-Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. However. I do not propose to order confiscation of land, building, plant, machinery, materials etc.
(vi) Pursuant to the aforesaid order of adjudication, the differential duty payable by the petitioner-Company on account of additions required to be made for the purpose of determining the value under the provisions of Rule 5 of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Valuation
Rules’) was worked out by the officers of the Central Excise Division, Patna, and of the petitioner-Company under the supervision and guidance of the Principal Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta. The statements (Annexure ‘2’) showing differential duty as per revised price lists, pursuant to the adjudication order dated the 10th April, 1986, were signed by the Commercial Manager of the petitioner-Company and by respondent No. 4, the Superintendent, Central Excise, Patna, with the remark:
Provisional subject to PME finalisation.
The Superintendent of Central Excise, Munger (respondent No. 4) thereafter sent a letter (Annexure-8) dated the 17th July, 1986, to the petitioner-Company. The letter was as follows:
Sub-Differential duty pursuant to Adjudication Order No. 1/1986, dated 10-4-1986 passed by the Director Central of Inspection, New Delhi,
You might be aware of the fact that the differential duty pursuant to above adjudication or has been worked out jointly by your Head Office Calcutta’s staff and Central Excise staff from the Central Excise Division, Patna, under the supervision and guidance of Principal Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta, The amount of duty worked out comes to Rupees 1,12,76,000.04 as detailed below:
Basic Excise duty Rs. 77,95,392.69 Add Excise duty Rs. 27,95,696.10 Aux Excise duty Rs. 00,20,692.38 Spl. Excise duty Rs. 06,64,218.97 You are, therefore, requested to provisionally pay the above amount as soon as possible. It may please be noted that the demand is quite provisional and will be finalised only after decision of P. M E. case which is pending in Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the reply to the aforesaid letter (Annexure 4), sent by the petitioner-Company it was expressly stated by the petitioner-Company as follows: ...we have provided revised price lists and detailed calculations, which have been checked and verified by the Officers of the Patna Collectorate and subsequently a demand for Rs. 1,12,76,000.04 (Rupees one crore twelve lacs, seventy-six thousand and paise four only) has been raised by you vide C No. ADZ/86/803, dated 17-7-1986 in settlement of all dues in terms of said order. The petitioner-Company also enclosed, along with the said letter, a Chalan evidencing payment of Rs. 1,12,76,000.04. In the Chalan (Annexure 5) it was stated that payment was in respect of excise duties against the demand raised vide C No. ADZ/86/30? dated 17-7-1985 in settlement of all dues in pursuance to the adjudication order No. 1 of 19S6 dated the 10th April, 986. (vii) On receipt of the aforesaid letter from the petitioner-Company, respondent No. 3, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Patna, informed the petitioner-Company by letter (Annexure 6) that the amount paid by the petitioner-Company on account of differentia! duty in terms of the adjudication order was provisional amount till the decision of the P. M. E. cases by the Supreme Court and that the amount: was liable for recalculation after finalisation of the case the Supreme Court and that the same would be intimated to the petitioner-Company on receipt of the order of the Supreme Court.
(viii) Before the decision of the Supreme Court in P. M. E. cases which are still pending, by a letter dated the 16th June. 1988, respondent No. 4, the Superintendent of Central Excise, called upon the petitioner-Company to pay additional excise duty amounting to Rs. 2,50,66,294.27 paise in addition to the amount of Rs. 1,12,76,000.04 paise paid by the petitioner-Company on the 25th July, 1986 It was stated that this additional amount had become payable on account of recalculation of the differential duty resultant on adding money value of the additional consideration received by the petitioner-Company from its buyers to the assessable value The petitioner-Company protested and sent a reply that it had paid in full the amount of differential duty in terms of the order of adjudication as demanded by respondent No. 4 by letter dated the 17th July, 1986.
(ix) By letter dated the 23rd August, 1988, (Annexure 14) respondent No. 3, the Assistant Collector, modified the demand made by respondent No. 4, for an additional amount of Rs. 2,50,66,294.27 and informed the petitioner-Company that the total differential duty payable pursuant to the adjudication order was Rs. 2,50,66,294.27 and that as the amount of Rs. 1,12,76,000.04 had already been paid by the petitioner-Company, the balance amount of Rs. 1,37,90,294.23 was payable by the petitioner-Company. The petitioner-Company resisted this demand by informing respondent No. 3 by letter dated the 29th August, 1988, (Annexure 15) that all the amounts due under the adjudication order dated the 10th April, 1986, were quantified at Calcutta under the supervision of the officers of various Collectorates, including Patna Collectorate, between 23rd June, and 16th July, 1986 and that the amount of differential duty found payable in relation to the petitioner’s factory at Munger was fully paid by the petitioner-company. It was, therefore, contended that further demand of Rs. 1,37,90,294.23 was patently illegal.
(x) Respondent No. 3, Assistant Collector, thereafter wrote to the petitioner company letter dated the l3th January, 1989, (Annexure 16) in partial (notification of respondent No. 4, the Superintendent of Central Excise, Patna. The petitioner-Company was informed by that that the correct amount of duty payable by the petitioner-Company based on the principle of adding the additional money value consideration to the assessable value was Rs. 9,41,86,883.29 and as the petitioner Company had only paid an amount of Rs, 1,12,76,000.04 towards that amount, the petitioner-Company Rs. 8,2y,10,883.25 within ten days.
(xi) The petitioner-Company resisted the demand contending, inter alia, that it was without authority of law and was violative of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner-Company denied any liability to pay any sum in excess of the amount already certified by respondent No. 4 and paid by the petitioner-Company pursuant to the demand made by the respondent No. 4 by letter dated the 17th July, 1986. In reply, the petitioner-Company was informed by the respondent No. 4 that the additional demand was on account of revised calculations in pursuance of the adjudication order and hence there was no need to issue any fresh show cause notice. As the petitioner-Company failed to pay the amount so demanded, a telegram was sent to the petitioner-Company on 10th March, 1990, by respondent No. 3, the Assistant Collector, calling upon the petitioner-Company to pay the amount as demanded by 20th March. 1990 failing which coercive action was threatened to recover the dues as the Government was facing extreme economic hardship. Apprehending that coercive action would be taken against the petitioner-Company for realising the amount in question, the petitioner-Company filed this petition praying for issuance of a writ to quash the demand made by respondents 3 and 4 as aforesaid.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that during the relevant period, excise duty chargeable on cigarettes was ad valorem and hence the value of the cigarettes manufactured by the petitioner-Company was required to be ascertaised in the manner provided by Section 4 of the Act, that in view of the finding of adjudicating authority in Paragraph 12.13 of the order of adjudication that the price was not the sole consideration for the sale of cigarettes to the wholesale dealers, the nearest ascertainable equivalent thereof was required to be determined by cause (b) of
Sub-section (i) of Section 4 of the manner prescribed by Rule 5 of the Valuation Rules, which laid down that the value of the goods in question shall be based on the aggregate of the price and the amount of money value of any additional consideration flowing from the buyer to the assessee, and that the petitioner-Company was, therefore, liable to pay such duty as was found payable on the basis of the assessable value determined in accordance with the provisions of Rule 5. It was further contended that even according to the departmental instructions issued in that behalf the money value of the additional consideration had to be
determined and added to the price to determine the normal price to ascertain value of the goods and that in view of this clear mandate of law, which the adjudicating authority should be presumed to be aware of, order of adjudication directed addition of the money value of additional consideration to the price to ascertain value of the goods, that it was that direction which was followed by the excise officials while determining the revised assessable value of cigarettes pursuant to the order of adjudication passed by the adjudicating authority and that differential duty amounting to Rs. 1,12,76,000.04 was demanded from the petitioner-Company and was accordingly paid by it. It was, therefore, contended that it was not permissible for the respondents to redetermine the revised assessable value and make fresh demand on the ground that there was a mistake in computing the assessable value and consequently the amount of duty payable by the petitioner-Company. It was urged that the respondent 3 or 4 had no power to review or rectify the determination of assessable value once made, that the order of adjudication made as a whole did not warrant the construction now sought to be placed on it and that even if there was any ambiguity the same should be resolved in favour of the assessee. Relying on the decision of the Privy Council in Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay Presidency v.
Khemchand Ramdas AIR 1938 PC 175, it was contended that the final assessment made by respondent No. 3 or 4, which was subject only to finalisation of P.M.E. case, could not be re-opened on any ground in absence of any provision of law enabling such reopening of assessment and, therefore, after an assessment had been made, the excise officials had no jurisdiction to go on making fresh computations and issuing fresh notices of demand to the end of all time. It was urged that in any event the so-called rectification or redetermination of assessable value was violative of the principles of natural justice as no show cause notice was served on the petitioner-Company before re-determining assessable value and making fresh demand of additional amount of duty. It was, therefore, contended that the demand of additional duty was arbitrary, violative of the provisions of law and the principles of natural justice and deserved to be quashed.
As regards the preliminary objection to the maintainability of the petition it was contended that aggrieved by a similar demand from the Collectorate Bangalore, the petitioner-Company had filed an appeal before the Collector (Appeals), Central Excise, Madras, but that appeal was dismissed on the ground that it was not maintainable and that in any event the demand made by the respondents for additional amount of excise duty from the petitioner-Company was contrary to law and to the order of adjudication, was arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice and in view of the imminent threat given by the respondents to recover the amount so demanded by coercive process, the petitioner-Company had no other alternative efficacious remedy but to file this petition and hence it was maintainable in the circumstances of the case.
4. In reply, it was contended by the learned Advocate-General on behalf of the respondents that under the provisions of law and the Rules and according to the finding of the adjudicating authority the assessable value of the cigarettes manufactured by the petitioner-Company was required to be determined by adding the money value of additional consideration to the normal price or assessable value, but, by mistake it was added to the cum-duty wholesale price and that such a mistake could be corrected by the respondents under inherent powers which every assessing authority possessed. It was further contended that for making such correction a show cause notice was not necessary because it would have been futile. It was contended that the petitioner-Company was informed that it could verify the correctness of the detailed working sheets of assessable value and the money value of additional consideration added to the sale value in terms of the order of adjudication, as worked out by the excise officials and that the respondents would have no objection if the impugned demand was held in abeyance for a certain period during which the petitioner-Company could verify the correctness of the calculations on the basis of which additional duty was demanded from the petitioner-Company but, if no mistake was discovered, then the respondents were entitled to recover the amount of duty payable by the petitioner-company by coercive action as contemplated by Section 11 of the Act.
5. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties I have come to the conclusion that this petition cannot be dismissed on the ground of existence of an alternative efficacious remedy. An appeal preferred by the petitioner-Company from a similar order was dismissed by the appellate authority and the ground that it was not maintainable. Moreover, if any action of the respondents is shown to be arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice, relief under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be denied to the petitioner It is, therefore, necessary to examine the contention that the demand is illegal, arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice.
6. Now before 1 proceed to appreciate the contentious advanced on behalf of the parties it is necessary to note that this petition is not directed against the order of adjudication which was appealable. Though an attempt was made by the petitioner-Company to amend the petition by incorporating a relief that the order of adjudication deserved to be struck down in so far as it was contrary to the provisions of Section 4 of the Act and the rules made thereunder, this amendment was not pressed. Therefore, the questions as to what would be the correct assessable value of the goods manufactured by the petitioner-Company during the relevant period, according to law for determination of the amount of excise duty payable by the petitioner-Company and whether the order of adjudication in that behalf is contrary to law, cannot be considered in this petition. No appeal having been preferred from the order of adjudicating authority, it has become final. The only question for consideration in this case is whether the demand for the additional amount of excise duty made by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 from the petitioner-company purporting to be pursuant to the order of adjudication can be held to be justified in the circumstances of the case.
7. It has to be further noted that during the relevant period the petitioner Company was recovering euro-duty wholesale price for its products from the wholesale dealers making deductions on account of P. M E from the cum-duty wholesale price. The issue regarding legality of such deduction is pending for consideration before the Supreme Court and the additional demand, that was made earlier and is again now being made by the respondents, is not in respect of P. M. E, as the demand, if any, in that behalf can only be finalised after the decision of the Supreme Court in P. M, E. cases. The occasion for making the additional demand of excise duty from the petitioner-Company arose because during the investigation the excise officials found that the petitioner-Company had failed to disclose in the price Hsu furnished by it, the receipt of the additional consideration from the buyers and this had resulted in evasion of excise duty payable by the petitioner-Company. The petitioner-Company was, therefore, called upon to show cause why differential duty be not demanded from it on the grounds specified in the show cause notice. It was initially contended on behalf of the respondents that the show cause notice issued to the petitions r-Company was not under Section 11-A(I) of the Act but later on it was not disputed in view of the finding of the adjudicating authority in Para 17.8 of the order that the extended period of limitation provided by the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 11-A of the Act was attracted, that the show cause notice was a notice given under Sub-section (i) of Section 11-A of the Act. It is true that in the show cause notice the amount, which the petitioner-Company would be required to pay, if no cause was shown, had not been specified but the petitioner-Company had been called upon to show why the amount of differential duty to be calculated in the manner specified in the notice be not recovered from it. After considering the representation of the petitioner-Company the adjudicating authority was required under Sub-section (2) of Section 11-A of the Act to determine the amount of duty payable by the petitioner-Company. If the amount had been so determined by the adjudicating authority and if it was not paid by the petitioner-Company, recovery of that amount can undoubtedly be made in the manner provided by Section 11 of the Act. Let us, therefore, find out whether the adjudicating authority has determined the amount of duty payable by the petitioner-Company in the instant case.
8. Now, in the. instant case, the Central Board of Excise and Customs had assigned adjudication proceeding initiated by the issue of show cause notice by respondent No. 3 to the Director of Inspection as the Collector of Central Excise and it was in pursuance of that power that the Director passed the order of adjudication on 10th April, 1986. By that order, the Director did not determine the amount of excise duty due from the petitioner-Company but merely gave findings on the issues arising out of the show cause notice and directed the respective proper officers to revise the assessable value of cigarettes in the light of the findings given by him and demand differential duty from the petitioner-Company on that basis. It is a moot question as to whether the determination of the amount of seizes duty payable by the petitioner-Company in the light of the show cause notice and the representation made by the petitioner-Company, could have been delegated by the adjudicating authority to the assessing authority. Be it as it may, the fact remains that that function was assigned to the assessing authority which was required to ascertain the amount of differential duty payable by the petitioner-Company in the light of the findings given by the adjudicating authority in the order of adjudication and make a demand for payment of differential duty from the petitioner-Company. It was not and could not be disputed that in July, 1986, the assessing authority had revised assessable value of the goods manufactured by the petitioner-Company during the relevant period and made assessment subject to finalisation of P.M.E. cases pending in the Supreme Court. The amount of differential duty so determined in pursuance of the order of adjudication was not challenged by the petitioner-Company and it paid !he amount of differential duty demanded from it by respondent No. 4 by letter dated 17th July, 1986 (Annexure 3). The question then that arises for consideration is whether after such determination of the amount of duty payable by the petitioner-Company, any further revision of assessable value and the amount of differential duty payable by the petitioner-Company can be made without giving any show cause notice in that behalf, when admittedly P.M.E. cases, subject to the decision of which the re-assessment was made, have not been decided by the Supreme Court.
9. Now, if the adjudicating authority had determined the amount of excise duty payable by the petitioner-Company in the light of the findings given by it and if that authority were to revise that determination subsequently on the ground of mistake in calculating the assessable value in terms of the findings given by it, could have done so without giving notice and hearing to the petitioner-Company in that behalf ? If the adjudicating authority could not have dispensed with the requirement of a show cause notice, then by no stretch of imagination it can be held that the assessing authority could proceed to revise the revised assessable value without giving show cause notice to the petitioner-Company and without hearing the petitioner-Company in that behalf as held by the Supreme Court in Union of India and Ors. v. Maihwni an Syntex Pvt. Ltd. , before any demand is made on any person chargeable in respect of nolevy or short levy or under payment of duty, a notice requiring him to show cause why he should not pay the amounts specified in the notice must be served on him It was contended on behalf of the respondents that giving such notice would have been futile because all that was done by the excise officials was to correct a mistake inadvertently crept in, while computing the revised assessable value and that the correctness of the calculations could even now be verified by the petitioner-Company. Apart from the fact that the amount of differential duty demanded from the petitioner-Company has been unilaterally changed by the respondents from time to time, the contention that serving a show cause notice would have been futile in the circumstances of the case cannot be upheld. What possible objection the petitioner Company could have raised is a matter which the petitioner-Company alone could decide. Had such a notice been given, the petitioner-Company could have raised objection that the assessing authority had no jurisdiction to revise the revised assessable value, that there was no mistake on a proper construction of the order of adjudication and that even if there was any mistake the same could not be rectified according to law. Even assuming that all such objections would have been ultimately overruled, the requirement of a show cause notice cannot be done away with. The rules of natural justice require that an opportunity of hearing should be afforded to a person who is likely to be prejudiced when any order is made, before making that order. How far the petitioner-Company could have succeeded, if an opportunity of hearing had been given to the petitioner-Company earn- not be prejudged. But demand for additional excise duty amounting to Rs. 8,29, 10,88(sic) without giving notice to the petitioner-Company to show cause why the said amount be not held to be payable by it, is contrary to the principles of natural justice and the scheme of the Act and cannot be sustained in law, In this view of the matter. 1 refrain from expressing any opinion on the questions as to whether the demand for the aforesaid amount is justified, according to law and in terms of the order of adjudication and whether the excise officials have jurisdiction to rectify order of re-assessment. These questions will have to be decided as and when they arise in appropriate proceedings initiated in that behalf.
10. For all these reasons this petition deserves to be allowed. The demands for the additional amount of excise duty nude by respondents 3 and 4 by letters Annexure 11 (letter dated 16th Jane, 1988, from respondent No. 4, the Superintendent of Central Excise, Mungre), Annexure 13(Letter No. 1170 dated 23rd August, 1988 from respondent No. 3. Assistant Collector of Central Excise Division, Patna), Annexure 14 (Letter No. 1171 dated 23rd August, 1988 from respondent No. 3), Annexure 16 (letter dated 13th January, 1989 from respondent No. 3), Annexure 17 (letter dated 19th July, 1989 from respondent No. 3 directing the petitioner-Company to deposit the amount of Rs. 8,29,10,883.25 threatening to take action if the amount was not paid within 10 days), Annexure 20 (letter dated 1st February, 1990, from respondent No. 3) Annexure 22 (letter dated 10th February, 1990 from respondent No. 4, the Superintendent of Central Excise), Annexure 24 (letter dated 7th March, 1990, from respondent No. 3, the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, directing the petitioner-Company to deposit the amount demanded by 20th March, 1990) and Annexure 25 (telegram from respondent No. 3 to the petitioner-Company demanding payment by 20th March, 1990) are all quashed. It is, however, made clear that the respondents shall be at liberty to recover from the petitioner-Company additional amount of excise duty, if any, legally payable by the petitioner-Company for the relevant period, from 1st October, 1975, to 28th February, 1983, alter issuing show cause notice in that behalf and after disposing of objections, if any, raised in that behalf by the petitioner-Company in accordance with law. In the circumstances of the case parties shall bear their own costs of this petition.
S.C. Mookherji, J.
11. I agree.