N.D.Ojha, J. - (1.) The case of the petitioner in this Writ Petition is that it manufactures in its factory in the district of Aligarh rubber belting including 'V belt and other rubber products which fall under Excise Tariff Item No. 16-A(4) of Schedule 1 to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). According to it excise duty on the said item is exempted up to a limit of production and its production is below the prescribed limit. Its case further is that a notice dated 30-10-1972> a copy whereof has been filed as Annexure 1 to the writ petition, was served on it by the Superintendent of Central Excise M.O.R. Aligarh stating that the goods manufactured by it were processed cotton fabrics falling under Tariff Item No. 19-1(I) of Schedule 1 to the Act. The petitioner was required to show cause why necessary demand may not be raised against it accordingly. The petitioner filed a reply dated 4-11-1972 to that notice a copy whereof has been filed as Annexure 2 to the writ petition in which it was asserted that the petitioner was a manufacturer of Rubber belting and used canvas and rubber as raw materials to achieve the product namely rubber belting. The process of manufacture was also indicated in the said reply. The plea of the petitioner was accepted by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Aligarh, by his order dated 3-3-1978 and the demand raised by the Superintendent, Central Excise, was dropped. A copy of this order has been attached as Annexure 3 to the Writ Petition.
(2.) According to the petitioner the Superintendent, Central Excise, thereafter kept quiet for nearly seven years. He, however, served a fresh notice dated 13/14-2-1985 asserting that what the petitioner was manufacturing was rubberised cotton fabrics (Intermediary product) falling under Tariff Item No. 19-I(b) of Schedule 1 to the Act. The petitioner was required to show cause as to why the amount mentioned in the said notice may not be realised from the petitioner. A further order of detention of goods of the petitioner was passed by the Superintendent, Central Excise on 14-2-1985. A copy of the notice dated 13/14-2-1985 has been filed as Annexure 4 to the writ petition and that of the order of detention dated 14-2-1985 as Annexure 5. It is this notice and the detention order which are sought to be quashed in the present writ petition.
(3.) A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents and the petitioner has filed a rejoinder-affidavit. Counsel for the parties were agreed that the writ petition may be decided finally at the admission stage itself as contemplated by the second proviso to Rule 2 of Chapter XXII of the Rules of Court. We have accordingly heard counsel for the parties on the merits of the writ petition.;