JUDGMENT

Sen, J.-This case is a good illustration of why the High Court should not intervene in revenue matters in exercise of writ jurisdiction where adequate alternative statutory remedies are available. In the instant case, complications have arisen because of the directions given by the Patna High Court on 15.9.1982 after quashing the various notices and orders in course of proceedings under the Central Excise and Salt Act.

2. The appellants are manufacturers of sheet glass which at the material time was chargeable to Central Excise duty on ad valorem basis. The appellants used to file their price lists in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the Central Excise Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules ) and pay duty according to their calculations. The trouble in this case arose with the price list No. 38/1979 which was filed on 4.7.1979. A show cause notice dated 7.7.1979 was issued by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise calling upon the assessee to explain as to why certain deductions claimed by them should not be added back to the excisable value of the goods. This was followed up by another show cause notice dated 16.8.1979 directing the appellants to follow the provisional assessment procedure prescribed under Rule 9B of the Rules and execute bonds for the purpose of effecting further clearances. On 5.9.1979, the Superintendent of Central Excise issued yet another show cause notice calling upon the appellants to explain as to why differential rate of duty should not be demanded under Rule 10 of the Rules w.e.f. 20.6.1979 and why penalty should not be imposed on them under Rule 1730 of the Rules. By another order dated 21.3.1980, the Assistant Collector modified the price list filed by the appellants and disallowed all the deductions claimed by them except for trade discounts.

3. The appellants filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the aforesaid orders passed by the Superintendent of Central Excise. Ultimately on 15.9.1982, the High Court quashed the show cause notice, the order passed on 21.3.1980 by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise disallowing the claim for the deductions made by the appellants and also the direction for provisional clearance on furnishing of bond given on 16.8.1979.

4. The High Court, however, remanded the case back to the Assistant Collector to ascertain the element which will constitute post-manufactural expenses which according to the High Court could not be included in the assessable value. The assessable value was directed to be redetermined by the Assistant Collector in accordance with the guidelines given by the High Court.

5. The Central Excise authorities did not prefer any appeal against the order of the High Court. On 7.3.1983, the Assistant Collector issued another show cause notice as to why claims for various deductions should not be disallowed. By final order dated 6.9.1984, the Assistant Collector rejected the claims for deductions following the law laid down by this Court in the case of Union of India v. Bombay Tyres International Ltd. & Ors. . A sum of Rs. 4,61,09,242.28p. was demanded for the period from 20.6.1979 to 30.7.1983. By a further order dated 17.10.1984, the Assistant Collector made another demand for differential duty amounting to Rs. 27,81,826.87p. for the period from 1.8.983 to 31.12.1983.

6. The Appellants contention is that these two orders were not preceded by any show cause notice Section 11A of the Central Excise and Salt Act. This according to the appellants, was mandatory and failure to give such a notice made these two orders ab initio void and of no legal effect. The appeal against the orders of the Assistant Collector was dismissed by the Collector (Appeals). A further appeal was preferred to Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal did not agree with the assessee s contention that because no show cause notice under Section 11A was given to the appellants by the excise authorities, the ord