AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.—In both these Writ Petitions, the petitioner wants this Court to decide that the petitioner''s product, stated to be
cut piece tobacco, is an unmanufactured product and therefore, the respondents are not competent in law to impose duty under Central Excise
tariff, as in Entry No. 2401.00 there is no duty imposed for the unmanufactured tobacco.
However, the respondents in the counter would state that the said contention cannot be said to be fully correct.
In the light of the rival contentions, I am of the view that this question has to be decided only by the department concerned.
It is brought to my notice that the petitioner filed a classification list for approval for the year 1992-93, wherein they claim that the impugned
goods, namely, a branded chewing tobacco under heading No. 2401.00 attracting Nil rate of duty.
On the basis of the said claim, the show cause notices have been issued to the petitioner. Without waiting for the process of the said
classification list by the Department, the petitioner has moved this Court to decide about the classification.
In this context, it would be relevant to refer to the Apex Court''s Judgment reported in The Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. P.
Kesavan and Co., . When the similar question came up, the Apex Court would hold as follows :-
5 Where technical matters are involved, and particularly when process of manufacture have become increasingly complicated, it is appropriate
that the authorities best competent to deal with such matters should be allowed to do so... we must stress that where intricate technical processes
are involved, it is proper that the writ court should direct writ petitioners to agitate their grievance before statutory authorities who are more
competent to assess the merits thereof.
A reading of the entire judgment of the Apex Court would make it clear that in these matters writ petitions should not be entertained and the writ
petitioners should be directed to agitate their grievances before the Authorities under the Act and that these Authorities would have been in a better
position to seek and appreciate the necessary evidence and determine whether or not that this said product was something that fall within the
classification of the claim.
Under these circumstances, it would be appropriate to dismiss the writ petitions by directing the petitioner to pursue with his remedy before the
Authorities, who have already issued show show cause notices.
It is open to the petitioner to raise all the contentions, urged in these writ petitions, before the respondents. With these observations, these writ
petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, WMP No. 17125 of 1992 is also dismissed.