( 1 ) IN the present suit for declaration and permanentinjunction, filed against defendants, plaintiff, M/s Somany-Pilkington s Ltd. ,has claimed the following reliefs :

(A) Decree for declaration be passed in favour of plaintiff andagainst the defendants declaring that the whole proceedings, search,notice dated 27. 3. 1986, Order dated 9/12/1986, passed bydefendant no. 2 s CBEC and impugned ex-parte order dated 2 9/01/1988 are without jurisdiction, null and void, illegal, voidabinitio and a nullity and quashing the same and directing the Defendant No. 2 s Assistant Collector to finalise/approve the price-lists andfinalise the assessment according to law. (b) Permanent injunction restraining the defendants from taking anyaction in respect of or on the basis of the notice dated 27. 3. 1986 andin respect of or on the basis of impugned ex-parte order dated 2 9/01/1988 and restraining the defendants from taking any actionpursuant to or on the basis of the notice dated 27/03/1986 andimpugned exparte order dated 29/01/1988, and/or the operation of the notice and the impugned exparte order be stayed.

( 2 ) FOR better appreciation of respective contentions of the learnedcounsel for parties, it is necessary to refer to, in brief, the facts of the case.

( 3 ) PLAINTIFF is a public limited company, incorporatad under thecompanies Act, 1956, having its registered ofiice in New Delhi. Plaintiffentered into a colloboration agreement with M/s Pilkington Tiles, U. K. , forthe manufacture of glazed tiles in India. In the year 1969, plaintiff was grantedindustrial licence and in the year 1971, plaintiff obtained excise licence for themanufacture of glazed tiles, from the Government of India in a backward areain Haryana.

( 4 ) THE authorised capital of the plaintiff company is Rs. 1 Crore50 lakhs. The major shareholding is held by M/s Pilkington Tiles, U. K. andby the public in India. Shri H. L. Somany is the Chairman of the Companyand the Board of Directors consists of the Government nominated Directors,reputed advocates, industrialists and also foreigners.

( 5 ) PLAINTIFF has about 200 dealers throughout India, in almost all thestates. Plaintiff is also exporting its goods to various countries of theworld and has been earning huge foreign exchange for the Government ofindia and has received export awards. Plaintiff pays Government revenue ofcrores of rupees annually and it has followed all the laws with due care andcaution. Plaintiff has a clean record since its very inception and has neverbeen found guilty of any offence.

( 6 ) FOR the determination of the price of any goods, the manufactureris required to furnish/submit a price list, thereby showing the prices of thegoods, manufactured by it, to a proper officer, as required under Rule 137cof the Central Excise Rules, 1944. (hereinafter called the Rules ). On receiptof the price list, the proper officer is required to determine/approve the pricesof the goods, so manufactured by the manufacturer, after making suchmodification, as the proper officer may consider, so as to bring the valueshown in the price list to the correct value for the purposes of assessment asprovided in Section 4 of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, (hereinaftercalled the Act ). The proper officer, before approving the prices. is authorisedto make such enquiry, as he deems fit in connection with the approval of theprices of the goods. However, if the proper officer is of the opinion thatenquiry into the approval/finalisation of the prices is likely to take sometimeand/or there will be delay in approving the prices, then in that case, properofficer may, by virtue of Rule 173c read with Rule 9b of the Rules, orderthat pending the approval/finalisation of the prices, the manufacturer canclear the goods on provisional basis and also direct the manufacturer toexecute a bond for such amount and with such security, as the proper officermay deem fit. After the final approval of the prices, the proper officer s