The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding nature of the government's interpretation of statutory provisions on the relevant authorities, emphasizing the importance of contemporaneous exposition in statutory construction.

( 1 ) M/s. The Mysore Acetate and Chemical Co. Ltd. , a Public Limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act, which is the petitioner before this Court, is inter alia engaged in the business of manufacturing a Chemical called "acetic anhydride" in its factory situated near mandya City of District Mandya, which is used as a drug intermediate by the drug manufacturers of the country. "acetic anhydride" as a Chemical is eligible to excise duty under tariff Item No. 68 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (Central Act 1 of 1944 ).

( 2 ) IN exercise of the powers conferred on it by sub-rule (1) of rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) the Government of India in its Notification No. 62/78-C. E. , dated 1st March, 1978 (annexure B), has exempted all drugs, medicines, pharmaceuticals and drug intermediates not elsewhere specified from payment of excise duty under the Act. Ever since then, acetic anhydride manufactured by the petitioner and supplied to the drug manufacturers as a drug intermediate had been treated by the excise authorities as exempted from payment of excise duty under the Act.

( 3 ) NOTWITHSTANDING the above, the Superintendent of Central Excise M. O. R. Mandya (hereinafter referred to as the Superintendent) by his Notice No. OC2193/81 dated 13th October, 1981 (annexure C), followed up show cause notice No. OC2741/81 dated 10th December, 1981 (annexure D), and revised show cause notice No. OC21/82 dated 1st January, 1982 (annexure F), has called upon the petitioner to pay excise duty on "acetic anhydride" manufactured and supplied to the drug manufacturers as a drug intermediate taking the view that it was a chemical and its supply as a drug intermediate does not entitle it for exemption from excise duty under the notification dated 1st March, 1978 (annexure B ). In this petition under article 226 of the constitution, the petitioner has challenged the aforesaid show cause notices issued by the superintendent.

( 4 ) THE petitioner has urged that on a true construction of the notification dated 1-3-1978 (Annexure B) interpreted by Government itself so much of 'acetic Anhydride' manufactured by the petitioner and supplied to the drug manufacturers as a drug intermediate was entitled for exemption from payment of excise duty and the impugned show cause notices issued by the superintendent are without jurisdiction and illegal.

( 5 ) SRI H. B. Datar, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that 'acetic Anhydride' a chemical but manufactured and supplied as a drug intermediate to drug manufacturers was entitled for exemption from payment of excise duty as interpreted by Government, on 14th September 1981 in the case of M/s. Hindustan Organic Chemicals Ltd. (Annexure H) reiterated in a later decision rendered on 10-9-1981 in the case of Shasum Chemicals (Madras) Pvt. Ltd. since reported in 1982 E. L. T. 796 (G. O..) and the demands made by the Superintendent in the show cause notices is without jurisdiction and illegal.

( 6 ) SRI K. Shivashankar Bhat, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue in justifying the notices, urged that it was open to the petitioner to appear before the Superintendent and urge the very contentions in this petition and such other contentions as are available to it before him who is bound to examine and decide them and then work out, its remedies under the act and even before this Court and therefore this is not a fit case in which this Court should exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction at this stage.

( 7 ) WHAT is challenged are show cause notices and therefore it is open to the petitioner to appear before the Superintendent and urge the very case pleaded before this Court who is bound to examine and decide the same and that decision can be challenged in appeals or other remedies can hardly be doubted.

( 8 ) THE fact that the notices are show cause notices and the petitioner has an opportunity to appear and urge its cas

Click Here to Read the rest of this document