CWP No. 15154 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 15154 of 2010 Date of Decision: 25.8.2010 M/s Tej Ram Dharam Paul ....Petitioner. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise and another ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Pawan Sharda, Advocate for the petitioner. ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This petition seeks quashing of letter dated 9.7.2010 (Annexure P-15) issued by Additional Commissioner (Preventive), Chandigarh and also seeks a direction to the respondents to hold that sachet making machine is not a packing machine as per the Chewing Tobacco and Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2010 framed under the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. Case of the petitioner is that it is manufacturing “filter Khaini” a tobacco product which is packed in filter sachets which cannot be considered as notified goods under the Rules as the same were not being packed with the aid of machines as provided under the Rules. Accordingly, the petitioner sought clarification relying upon the CWP No. 15154 of 2010 -2- view expressed in its favour by Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise, Sangrur in response to which the impugned letter was received stating:- “The matter has been examined in the light of the provisions relating to compounded levy scheme. This office does not agree with the views expressed vide above letter that there is no duty leviable on filter khaini sachet machine under section 3A. The clarification issued by Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise Division, Sangrur vide C. No. IV(16)30/TECH/ TRDP/U/S3A/SNG/03/10/1821-22 dated 7.4.2010 has already been examined and reviewed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh-II in exercise of the powers conferred under section 35E (2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and directions have been issued to the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority, a copy of which shall be supplied to you in due course following the principles of natural justice. As such in the views of this office, duty shall be leviable u/s 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on the basis of number of Filter Khaini Sachet Machines installed in your factory and not otherwise.” 4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. Submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that once the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise Division, Sangrur has taken a view that no duty was leviable on Filter Khaini packed in Sachets, even CWP No. 15154 of 2010 -3- if the appeal was being filed against the said order, the same must be made applicable to the case of the petitioner. 6. We are unable to accept the submission. Question of leviability of duty as per rules is a matter to be determined by the statutory authorities under the Act in the first instance. Difference of opinion between one or the other authority cannot be a ground to interfere in the writ petition at this stage. In view of availability of alternative remedy before hierarchy of authorities under the statutory scheme, we do not deem it appropriate to entertain this petition at this stage. 7. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE August 25, 2010 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE