- (1.) The petition questions the propriety of an order of December 22, 2015 by which the petitioners have been held to be manufacturers within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and found to have evaded excise duty in excess of Rs.11 crore and, as such, liable to a substantial penalty. Despite there being an appellate remedy under Section 35B of the Act, the petitioners claim that the appeal would not be efficacious in view of the statutory pre -deposit that is required to be made and that, in any event, the challenge is primarily on the ground of the breach of the principles of natural justice.
(2.) The petitioners claim that the order impugned did not take into account the detailed reply furnished by the petitioners and the documents on record.
(3.) The petitioners are engaged in the business of supply of goods pertaining to electricity transmission. The petitioners claim to do business as traders, whether by causing small quantities of goods to be manufactured on job - work basis or purchasing the goods from suppliers for ultimate sale to end -users. The petitioners say that they have held themselves out as manufacturers to their purchasers, but that would not imply that the petitioners can be deemed to be manufacturers under the said Act for the purpose of making the petitioners liable to pay excise duty on the goods purchased from suppliers and sold to end -users.;