- (1.) THE judgment will dispose of Civil Writ No. 2856 of 1970, Ajay Enterprises v. The Superintendent of Central Excise and Ors. and 2857 of 1970, Lee la Devi Tapuriah v. The Superintendent, Central Excise and Ors. , as common questions of law and facts arise in both these petitions.
(2.) AJAY Enterprises are the manufacturers of rotors, while Leela Devi Tapuriah manufactures stators. The rotors and stators are parts of the electric motors, which are used in the electric fans. The petitioners took licences for the manufacture of these parts in January, 1970, but did not comply with the rules contained in Chapter V1i-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter called the Rules), particularly Rule 173-B with the result that the factories of the petitioners were raided on August 7, 1970, in order to find out the articles which were being manufactured by them. The raid was organised by respondents 2, 3 and 4. On August 20, 1970 respondent no. 1 issued a letter to the petitioners stating that they were manufacturing, processing and clearing excisable goods and directed them to submit a list in Form 1 under Rule 173-B of the Rules and to explain the reasons for alleged non-compliance of the said Rules. The petitioners were also directed to submit a return under Rule 173-G of the Rules. In reply to that letter, the petitioners informed respondent no. 1 that they did not manufacture or produce any excisable goods and were not liable to submit any particulars under Rule 173-B of the Rules. They also denied their liability to submit any return under Rule 173-G on the ground that they were not manufacturing any excisable goods. This plea of the petitioners did not prevail with respondent no. 1 and on August 29, 1970, respondent no. 2 issued an order directing the petitioners to inform him about the prices of rotors and stators being manufactured by them. The petitioners denied that they were manufacturing those goods by letter dated September 1, 1970. On the same date respondent no. 1 passed an order that the rotors and stators being manufactured by the petitioners were exciseable under item 30 in the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The petitioners then filed the present petitions on the ground that the goods manufactured by them were not excisable goods under that item.
(3.) WRITTEN statements have been filed by the respondents and to those written statements the petitioners have filed replications.;