CWP No.12916 of 1990 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 12916 of 1990 Date of Decision: 21.7.2011 Punajb State Electricity Board, Patiala ....Petitioner. Versus Union of India . ..Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. R.L.Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondent. Adarsh Kumar Goel, ACJ. 1. This petition seeks quashing of demand notice dated 31.7.1990, Annexure P.5 under the Central Excise Act, 1944. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that infact challenge is to letter dated 18.10.1989, Annexure P.4 whereby the petitioner has been required to appear before the Additional Collector. 2. As per averments in the petition, the petitioner-Board is fabricating HT/LT coils from super enameled copper wire on which excise duty is already paid. The copper wire is wound with the help of winding machine for repair of transformers. In this process, there is no manufacturing so as to attract excise duty. Against earlier similar demand, the matter was adjudicated upon by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) 1 CWP No.12916 of 1990 Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in the case of the petitioner and it was held that no manufacturing process was involved. The said order is dated 26.2.1987 in the case of the petitioner. He further states that on appeal, the question was left open by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to be decided in appropriate case. However, the said order is not available. This being the position, the impugned letter requiring the petitioner to appear before the Additional Collector was without jurisdiction. 3. In the reply filed on behalf of the department, it has been stated that writ petition has been filed only against notice and no demand has so far been raised. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. As regards order of the Tribunal, the matter having been left open by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as stated by learned counsel, the same cannot be treated to be final view in law. The department has still to decide the matter. 6. In view of the fact that no demand has so far been raised and the petitioner has only been issued summons to appear, the petitioner has alternative remedy of raising all the pleas before the concerned authority. 7. No further order is, thus, necessary in this petition. The petition will stand disposed of accordingly without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the petitioner in appropriate proceedings. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Acting Chief Justice July 21, 2011 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) ‘gs’ Judge 2