- (1.) Short question involved in both these writ petitions is as to whether the show cause notices issued by the Superintendent, Central Excise Department, Range Urban-1, Kota, are valid notices whereby it is proposed to include the interest chargeable on overdues for determining the 'assessable value' under Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").
(2.) The petitioners are engaged in manufacture of PVC Resin and PVC Compounds inter alia among other products. The petitioners sell 70% of its goods at wholesale prices at the factory gate to various buyers on cash-cum-carry basis, no interest is either chargeable or charged on the money so collected from such buyers at the time of clearance of goods on the gate. However, in less than 30% cases the dealers do not make cash payment and the goods are delivered on different payment basis where the price is paid subsequently, at times with considerable delay, and on such overdues the petitioners charge normal interest. The Excise Department took the view that the interest charged on deferred payment is included in the assessable value under Section 4 of the Act of 1944. The Department raised this question by means of claim of the refund by the petitioners and the Assistant Collector, Central Excise on 5th February, 1979, passed an order confirming the payment including the interest charged in the assessable value. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners had filed an appeal before the Collector, Central Excise (Appeals) which was allowed and the learned Collector had held categorically that the amounts of interest charged are not to be included in the 'assessable value'. After 7 years of the aforesaid order the Superintendent, Central Excise Department, Range Urban-1, Kota, has issued the impugned demand-cum-show cause notice on 29-4-1991 and 9-9-1991 which are under challenge in these writ petitions.
(3.) The petitioners' grievance is that the Superintendent had no jurisdiction, express or implied, to issue the impugned notices. It is submitted that once there was an adjudication of the same question by the appellate authority, it could not have been reopened by lower authority. The contention of the petitioners is that against the decision of the higher authority in the hierarchy of the authorities, neither any disregard is permitted nor it can be flouted by the lower authorities otherwise there will be total chaos in the department. It is thus, prayed that the said notices be quashed as unsustainable.;