Judgment :- The Order of the Court is as follows :- Invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner herein has filed the present writ petition, seeking for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records in Order No. 22/91, dated 31-5-1991 issued under C. No. IV/16/123/90-VC of the second respondent and to quash the same. 2.In support of the writ petition, the petitioner herein has filed an affidavit wherein they have narrated all the facts and circumstances that forced them to file the present writ petition and requested this court to allow the writ petition as prayed for. Per contra, on behalf of the respondents, a counter affidavit has been filed rebutting all the material allegations levelled against them one after the other and ultimately they have requested this court to dismiss the writ petition for want of merits. 3. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. I have perused the contents of the affidavit and the counter affidavit together with all other relevant material documents available on record in the form of typed set of papers. I have also taken into consideration the various points raised by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties during the course of their arguments. 4.In the above facts and circumstances, the only point that arises for consideration in this case is, as to whether there are any valid grounds to allow this writ petition or not. 5.The brief facts of the case of the petitioner as seen from the affidavit are as follows. : The petitioner is a limited company having its Registered office at Dharangadhara, Gujarat State and having a manufacturing unit at Arumuganeri, in Chidambaranar District in the State of Tamil Nadu. The petitioner is carrying on the business inter alia of the manufacture and sale of various basic heavy chemicals. One of the main products of the petitioner is caustic soda which is manufactured by electrolising Sodium Chloride solution and thereafter treating the released sodium with water to produce Caustic Soda Lye. In the process of electrolising Sodium Chloride solution, wet Chlorine gas is released. The petitioner burns the wet chlorine with hydrogen and obtains Hydrogen Chloride fumes and produces Hydrochloric Acid (referred as HCl for brevity) to the extent of demand, which acid is either sold in the market or captively consumed. In the process of electrolising Sodium Chloride solution, wet Chlorine gas is released. The petitioner burns the wet chlorine with hydrogen and obtains Hydrogen Chloride fumes and produces Hydrochloric Acid (referred as HCl for brevity) to the extent of demand, which acid is either sold in the market or captively consumed. In the case of the petitioner, till the year 1965, very small quantities of the acid were ready buyers close to the factory. The petitioner, thereafter, decided to put a plant for the production of upgraded Ilmenite using the Hydrochloric acid. HCl was not an excisable product till 1979, but on and from 1st March, 1979, it was brought under the excise net, with a rate of duty of 10% ad valorem. The petitioner has a licence from the Government of India for the manufacture of 100% HCl. The nomenclature of "HCl on 100% basis" is not uncommon in the industry which is the reason why even the industrial licence of the petitioner calls it as "100% acid". The production records of the petitioner are also consequently maintained on 100% right from the date the petitioner started production of HCl which was well before the date when the product was brought under the excise net. The licence given by the Central Excise Department was for production of 33, 000 MT of HCl which quantification is for HCl acid on 100% basis. It is factually true that HCl acid cannot exist in 100% form. The corrosive gaseous Hydrogen chloride fumes need to be dissolved in water to obtain HCl acid of 30 to 33% concentration and thereby becomes HCl acid of the commercial grade (30 - 33%). The petitioner had filed a classification list and price list on the basis of 100% acid in March, 1979 on HCl becoming excisable. Since the entire production of HCl was meant for captive consumption by the petitioner itself, within its factory premises for the purpose of manufacturing of upgraded Ilmenite for exports, the petitioner by adopting the valuation procedures under Rule 6(b)(ii), filed a price list for HCl on 100% basis at Rs. 25.27 per MT supported by cost statement certified by competent cost accountant. The department enhanced the price of HCl in the price list after adjudication proceedings and the value, as mentioned in the price list, was increased from Rs. 25.27 per MT to Rs. 175/- per MT. 25.27 per MT supported by cost statement certified by competent cost accountant. The department enhanced the price of HCl in the price list after adjudication proceedings and the value, as mentioned in the price list, was increased from Rs. 25.27 per MT to Rs. 175/- per MT. For the same description of the goods as per the approved classification list by the department price lists had been filed and the approval was also accorded for HCl on 100% basis. As a total after thought, after a period of over four years, the respondent herein sought to reopen the entire matter by issuing a show cause notice by invoking proviso to Section 11(A) of the Act on the allegation that the petitioner has suppressed information of having maintained records on 100% basis with an intention to evade duty. The show cause notice dated 12-5-1983 covered the period from 1-3-1979 to 30-11-1983. Subsequently the above period was restricted from 1-3-1979 to 31-5-1981 for a total quantity of 51, 100 MT and alleged evasion of Excise duty to the tune of Rs. 20.4 lakhs approximately. Aggrieved by the allegation of suppression, the petitioner filed writ petition No. 9566/84 challenging the above show cause notice on the grounds inter alia of jurisdiction and limitation. The above writ petition was admitted and original proceedings were stayed. Thereafter by an order dated 29-7-1986 of this court the proceedings were allowed to continue and the Collector was directed in WMP. No. 6665 of 1985 to give a finding on jurisdiction and limitation as a preliminary issue. The Collector by his order No. 40/87, dated 24-4-1987 upheld his jurisdiction and rejected the contentions on limitation and the above order of the Collector was confirmed by the Tribunal by its order date 3-12-1987 in Appeal No. E/430/87. However, the W.P. No. 9566/84 is still pending on the file of this court and the issue of jurisdiction and limitation is still alive. That being so, the Collector, by his subsequent orders dated 10-6-1988 directed that the show cause notice dated 12-5-1983, in so for it related to the period between 1-3-1979 to 31-5-1991 would be adjudicated by him. The personal hearing in respect of the above adjudication in show cause notice dated 12-5-1983 was taken up on 10-6-1988 and the order was passed demanding a duty of Rs. 20.4 lakhs and imposing a penalty of Rs. 1 crore. The personal hearing in respect of the above adjudication in show cause notice dated 12-5-1983 was taken up on 10-6-1988 and the order was passed demanding a duty of Rs. 20.4 lakhs and imposing a penalty of Rs. 1 crore. But, for the subsequent period between 1-6-1981 to 30-11-1982 the matter was left open to the Assistant Col-lector to decide, since the price list filed by the petitioner for the related period was still only provisional. The above orders dated 10-6-1988 had been passed without giving the petitioner an adequate opportunity to represent itself and consequently W.P. No. 10351/88 was filed to quash the said order. The write petition was dismissed on the ground of alternate remedy but writ appeal No. 121/89 filed by the petitioner herein was admitted and finally allowed by a Division Bench of this court by its order dated 30-1-1989 and the matter was remanded back to the respondent for a de novo proceeding. On 20-2-1989 a personal hearing was conducting and the petitioner was represented in the hearing when a detailed written submission was also made contesting the claims of the department and refuting the liability. Despite the same, an order dated 6-3-1989 was passed by the respondent in and by which, while reducing the penalty to Rs. 1 lakh from Rs. 1 crore earlier imposed, the respondent proceeded further to state that, on merits regarding the basic fact of evasion of duty, the petitioner's counsel had conceded the same before him. Aggrieved by the above order, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 4686 of 1989 and this court has entertained the writ and in WMP. No. 4831/89 also stayed all proceedings pursuant to the first respondent's order dated 6-3-1989. While this be the factual position, the second respondent herein issued a fresh show cause notice on 27-8-1990 on the same allegations contained in the original show cause notice dated 12-5-1983 of his superior officer and the only difference is that the show cause notice was for the period between 1-6-1981 to 21-6-1983 i.e., for an additional period of 61/2 months beyond 30-11-1982. The petitioner gave a detailed written representation to the show cause notice and also appeared for a personal hearing where the petitioner had inter alia raised the issue that when the adjudication for the earlier period was already sub judice in writ proceedings and stay orders have been obtained, it would not be proper for the second respondent to proceed with the adjudication. However, the second respondent by his order dated 31-5-1991 rejected the contentions of the petitioner and passed an order with effect from 1-6-1981, revaluing the petitioner's price list No. 7/82-83 at a value of Rs. 220/- per MT of 30 to 33% concentration. The main contentions raised by the petitioner were that there was an approved classification list and since there could be no dispute regarding the classification or quantification and that the maintenance of the records on 100% basis had been a procedure followed right from the beginning even before the initiation of excise proceedings. These were not discussed in the order "since the matter is sub judice". Having held do, it was highly improper on the part of the second respondent to have proceeded further with the adjudication merely because the stay order passed by this court did not cover the period, dealt with in the present proceedings. It is contended by the petitioner that while passing the impugned order, the second respondent obviously being a subordinate officer to the first respondent has without any independent appreciation of facts, followed the figures and the prices fixed by the first respondent for the earlier periods including the alleged comparable prices of M/s. Mettur Chemicals & Industrial Corpn. Ltd.. Moreover, one of the main points raised in the earlier proceedings was that there was no suppression and hence invoking of the proviso to Section 11(A) was not maintainable. The only allegation on which the proviso to Section 11(A) has been invoked was that there was some alleged investigation by the authorities which resulted in the proceedings. Then details of the investigations were sought for, in the present order of the second respondent, it has been contended that the department "was not bound to inform the nature of investigation or give any particulars regarding the investigation". even though specific request for copies of the same were made. Then details of the investigations were sought for, in the present order of the second respondent, it has been contended that the department "was not bound to inform the nature of investigation or give any particulars regarding the investigation". even though specific request for copies of the same were made. It is contended by the petitioner that there was in fact no investigation at all and the proceedings have been initiated for the only purpose of seeking to reopen the already finalised classification list and price list by invoking the proviso to Section 11(A). In this context, the rejection of the petitioner's contention by refusing to furnish particulars of investigation in order to enable the petitioner to cross-examine the concerned officers amount to gross denial of natural justice. It is also their case that while the points relating to suppression and investigation do not form part of the present order on merits. The issues raised in the earlier period have been extracted by the second respondent while passing the present order and indeed clear references are made to the earlier proceedings culminating in the order of the first respondent which has been stayed by this court. Hence this writ petition. 6.In this case, the impugned order is challenged by the petitioner on the ground that the impugned order in contrary to law and otherwise incorrect inasmuch as the second respondent ought not to have proceeded with the adjudication when on identical facts an order has been passed by the superior officer in respect of the immediately preceding period, which order has of his superior officer has been stayed by this court in writ proceedings, and that having no exercised his jurisdiction to continue with the adjudication, the second respondent erred in not discussing the various objections raised by the petitioner and instead, refused to do so on the grounds that those matters were sub judice leading thereby to a situation by which on one hand the matter would not be deferred till the court's verdict is known; but on the other, the contentions raised by the petitioner could not be discussed because of pending proceedings in the court and thus has done grave injustice and hardship to the petitioner. Further it is their case that in the instant case, it is not a factual dispute that the maintenance of records on 100% basis had been a practice since starting of the industrial undertaking in 1965 when the product, i.e., HCl was not even excisable and that therefore consequently any allegation that the maintenance of records on 100% basis was a plea to evade excise duty is on the face of it, erroneous and false. Inter alia it is also contended by the petitioner that considering the nature of captive consumption, it was incumbent on the authorities to have determined the value on the basis of cost of manufacture together with such margin of profit as is reasonable. In this context, according to them, provision of Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975 ought to have been followed. Instead the respondent had resorted to follow the provisions of Rule 6(b)(i) dealing with the valuation of the prices of comparable goods. Further according to them, it is an established fact in the Chemical industry that HCl has no fixed price, and in almost all chemical factories manufacturing Caustic Soda, HCl is made for the purpose of utilisation of the Chlorine which gets released in the manufacture of Caustic Soda; because Chlorine is highly corrosive which cannot be let out in th atmosphere and as such it can only be made as liquid chlorine or converted to hydrochloric acid. Further according to them very often chemical factories, sometimes given away their HCl to intending purchasers, who are invoted to take away the acid from the factory, bearing the transport cost and that their sale of HCl during the relevant period to other industrial purchaser (Govt. company) Ennore Thermal power project was only at Rs. 110/- PMT which is half the price fixed in the impugned order. That apart the same Mettur Chemicals had also sold HCl to the petitioner itself of Rs. 50/- per MT in 1985 while at the same time purchasing HCl from another company M/s. Chemplast situated at Mettur itself at a price of Rs. 130/82 PMT during 1983. According to the petitioner all these transactions have happened within a short period of each other indicating thereby the fluctuating nature of the price of this acid in chemical industry. 50/- per MT in 1985 while at the same time purchasing HCl from another company M/s. Chemplast situated at Mettur itself at a price of Rs. 130/82 PMT during 1983. According to the petitioner all these transactions have happened within a short period of each other indicating thereby the fluctuating nature of the price of this acid in chemical industry. Therefore it is the categoric case of the petitioner that in the above circumstances the arbitrary fixation of the value of the petitioner's acid used for its own domestic consumption is clearly bad and is obviously based on order of the first respondent which has been stayed by this court. 7. Per contra, justifying the action of the respondents, they have filed a detailed counter affidavit. They contended that Hydrochloric Acid was fully exempted from payment of excise duty till 28-2-1979 as per Notification No. 25/64, dated 1-3-1964. However this exemption was withdrawn and from 1-3-1979 HCl acid was subjected to Central Excise duty as per Notification No. 48/79, dated 1-3-1979. The company filed a classification list in respect of HCl acid manufactured on 16-4-1979. The product was described in their declaration as 'Hydrochloric Acid (on 100% Basis) ". The classification list was approved on 2-6-1979, by the Assistant Collector under Tariff item 14G with a basic excise duty of 10% adv. As the HCl acid manufactured by the petitioner was consumed captively, they also filed a price list in part-VI on 17-4-1979 with a description of "Hydrochloric Acid (on 100% basis)". The price claimed for approval was Rs. 25.27 per MT. However, the Asstt. Collector approved the above price list on 2-6-1979 after ravising the assessable value to Rs. 175/- per MT as the company had sold HCl acid to industrial consumers at the rate of Rs. 175/- per MT prior to 1-3-1979. After their appeal was rejected in this regard, the revised assessable value of the product was accepted by the company and duty was paid accordingly. They also contended that since the HCl acid produced by the petitioner is comparable with that produced by M/s. Mettur Chemicals and Industrial Corporation Ltd., Mettur determination of assessable value of HCl acid produced by the M/s. Mettur Chemicals and Industrial Corporation Ltd., Mettur is legally in order according to Rule 6(b)(i) of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules 1975. They also contended that since the HCl acid produced by the petitioner is comparable with that produced by M/s. Mettur Chemicals and Industrial Corporation Ltd., Mettur determination of assessable value of HCl acid produced by the M/s. Mettur Chemicals and Industrial Corporation Ltd., Mettur is legally in order according to Rule 6(b)(i) of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules 1975. The price adopted by M/s. Mettur Chemicals and Industrial Corporation Ltd., Mettur was Rs. 200.56 per MT from 1-3-1979 to 18-6-1980 and Rs. 220.56 per MT from 19-6-1980 onwards of HCl acid of a concentration of about 30%. Hence show cause notice O.C. No. 2173, dated 25-8-1981 was issued by the Range Officer, Tiruchendur Range to the petitioner demanding differential duty to the tune of Rs. 1, 62, 689.83 on the quantity of HCl acid manufactured and consumed by the petitioner captively during the period from 1-3-1979 to 31-5-1981. The petitioner paid the amount voluntarily. The Asstt. Collector gave a reply vide his letter dated 3-2-1988, that they were permitted to pay that said amount of differential duty on HCl acid as per the particular show cause notice in settlement of the case issues, raised in that notice. Subsequently as a result of further investigation conducted by the jurisdictional Assistant Collector, it came to his notice that (i) even though the petitioner had been manufacturing HCl acid of 30-33% concentration, the petitioner accounts 1/3 of the quantity production in RG1 Account so as to arrive at the 100% basis. According to Rule 173B, the petitioner should file a classification list by mentioning the description of the HCl acid as 30-33% concentration. But they furnished the description as HCl acid 100% acid basis in the lists filed on 16-4-1979 and 19-6-1980. The description on classification list filed on 14-4-1981 was also on 100% basis, but upon being informed by the range, the petitioner amended said classification list with description of HCl acid as 30-33%. According to them even though the petitioner filed a revised classification list on 1-4-1981 with correct description, they failed to file a revised price list for the changed description of the goods shown in the above classification list in accordance with sub-rule 10 of Rule 173C of Central Excise Rule even after several reminders from Divisional Office. According to them even though the petitioner filed a revised classification list on 1-4-1981 with correct description, they failed to file a revised price list for the changed description of the goods shown in the above classification list in accordance with sub-rule 10 of Rule 173C of Central Excise Rule even after several reminders from Divisional Office. Inter alia is contended by the respondents that during the period under reference the entire quantity was utilised for captive consumption, there is no factory gate sale and subsequently no factory gate price. Hence, the correct procedure for determination of value is by comparison with other manufacturers. According to the respondents M/s. Mettur Chemicals is the only comparable unit for M/s. D.C.W. Ltd., Sahuouram for the following reasons : (1) both are Public Ltd., companies; (2) both are situated in Tamil Nadu; (3) both the labour charges incurred are more or less same and hence, the action taken by the department to use the price of these two units as the basis for valuation is fair and sustainable under Rule 6(b)(i) of the valuation Rules. Further it is also contended by the respondents that though the petitioners industrial licence, refers to 100% HCl acid, this is not of relevance to Central Excise Law. As a licensee under CESA 1944 the petitioner is excepted to make a true and correct declaration of the excisable goods manufactured by them in the classification list/price list and statutory records. They have failed to discharge this obligation. By declaring the concentration of HCl acid manufactured by them as 100% the petitioner was able to manufacture and captively consume three times the quantity actually declared to the Central Excise Department in the statutory records, but paid duty only on 1/3 of the quantity actually used. The petitioners by a simple formula divised by themselves without any sanction, converted the 30-33% concentration HCl acid manufactured by them to 100% concentration thereby consuming three times the quantity for every one tonne of duty paid HCl acid. There was a clear failure on their part to declare the full quantity of acid manufactured and consumed by them. The petitioners by a simple formula divised by themselves without any sanction, converted the 30-33% concentration HCl acid manufactured by them to 100% concentration thereby consuming three times the quantity for every one tonne of duty paid HCl acid. There was a clear failure on their part to declare the full quantity of acid manufactured and consumed by them. Therefore it is categoric contention of the respondents that the action taken by the department to compare the price of these two units is fair and sustainable under Rule 6(b)(i) of Valuation Rules.8.Having seen the entire material available on record and from the facts and circumstances of the case and also from the claims and counter claims made by the parties the following are the admitted facts. The petitioners herein were manufacturing Hydrochloric acid which was classified under Tariff Item 14G of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff. Hydrochloric acid (HCl acid) was fully exempted from payment of excise duty till 28-2-1979 as per Notification No. 25/64, dated 1-3-1964. This exemption was withdrawn and from 1-3-1979, HCl acid was subjected to Central Excise duty as per Notification No. 48/79, dated 1-3-1979. The company filed a classification list in respect of HCl acid manufactured on 16-4-1979 describing the same as Hydrochloride Acid (on 100% basis). That being so it is significant to note that the price claimed for approval was Rs. 25.27 per MT. However, the Assistant Collector approved the above price list on 2-6-1979 after revising the assessable value to Rs. 175/- per MT as the company had sold HCl acid to industrial consumers at the rate of Rs. 175/- per MT prior to 1-3-1979. The company filed an appeal against this upward revision in the assessable value which was rejected by the Appellate Collector, vide his Order No. 1327/80, dated 9-5-1980 and the revised assessable value of the product was accepted by the company and duty was paid accordingly. In this regard it is significant to note that the HCl Acid is being captively consumed besides being sold in the market. It is also clear that the assessable value of the captively consumed HCl acid is price at which it is sold. In this regard it is significant to note that the HCl Acid is being captively consumed besides being sold in the market. It is also clear that the assessable value of the captively consumed HCl acid is price at which it is sold. Since the petitioners are captively consuming the entire quantity of HCl acid produced by them valuation of this product has to be made by resorting to the provision of Rule 6(b)(i) or 6 (b)(ii) of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975. Since the HCl acid produced by the petitioner is comparable with that produced by M/s. Mettur Chemicals and Industrial Corporation Ltd., Mettur, determination of assessable value of HCl acid produced by the M/s. Mettur Chemicals and Industrial Corporation Ltd., Mettur is legally in order according to Rule 6(b)(i) of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975, as rightly contended by the respondents. Further show cause notice was issued on 25-8-1981 to the petitioner demanding differential duty to the tune of Rs. 1, 62, 689.83 on the quantity of HCl acid manufactured and consumed by the petitioner captively during the period from 1-3-1979 to 31-5-1981. The petitioner paid the amount voluntarily. However while making the payment, the petitioner wanted a declaration from the Department that the above payment settles the dues relating to the HCl Acid Manufactured and cleared by them during the period 1-3-1979 to 31-5-1981 fully and finally. To this the Assistant Collector gave a reply vide his letter dated 3-2-1988, that they were permitted to pay the said amount of differential duty on HCl acid as per the particular show cause notice in settlement of the case issues raised in that notice. The petitioner subsequently filed another classification list on 19-6-1980 consequent in the increase in the rate of duty on HCl acid from 10% to 15% adv. This classification list was also approved by the Assistant Collector on 7-7-1980. It is significant to note that as a result of further investigation conducted by the jurisdictional Assistant Collector, it came to his notice that (i) Even though the petitioner had been manufacturing HCl acid of 30-33% concentration, the petitioner's accounts 1/3 of the quantity production in RG1 account so as to arrive at the 100% basis. It is significant to note that as a result of further investigation conducted by the jurisdictional Assistant Collector, it came to his notice that (i) Even though the petitioner had been manufacturing HCl acid of 30-33% concentration, the petitioner's accounts 1/3 of the quantity production in RG1 account so as to arrive at the 100% basis. It is the categoric contention of the respondents that according to Rule 173B, the petitioner should file a classification list by mentioning the description of the HCl acid as 30-33% concentration. But they furnished the description as HCl acid 100% acid basis in the list filed on 14-4-1979 and 19-6-1980. The description on classification list filed on 14-4-1981 was also on 100% basis, but upon being informed by the range. The petitioner amended said classification list with description of HCl acid as 30-33%. Further it is also made clear that even though the petitioner filed a revised classification list on 1-4-1981 with correct description, they failed to file a revised price list for the changed description of the goods shown in th above classification list in accordance with sub-rule (10) of Rule 173C of Central Excise Rules, 1994 even after several reminders from Divisional office. Another significant aspect in this case is that the Assistant Collector completed his invetigation and issued two show cause notices covering the period from 14-4-1981 to 31-8-1982 and for the period from 1-9-1982 to 30-11-1982 alleging suppression of production in the quantity of HCl acid manufactured and consumed by the petitioner and mis-declaration of the assessable value adopted by the petitioner. Further before finalisation of the above show cause notices, all the alleging notices till then issued by the Department were consolidated and a single notice dated 12-5-1983 covering the period from 1-3-1979 to 30-11-1982 was issued. In the meantime Section 11A was comprehensively amended with effect from 27-12-1985 by which the jurisdiction to decide cases of recovery of duties short levied due to fraud, collusion, mis-statement of facts etc., was transferred to Collector. Thereafter the petitioner moved this Court in W.P. No. 9566/84 and obtained an injunction. On the vacation of the injunction the petitioner appeared for a personal hearing on 19-9-1986 and after granting a proper hearing to the representatives of the petitioner, a speaking order was passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Madurai. Thereafter the petitioner moved this Court in W.P. No. 9566/84 and obtained an injunction. On the vacation of the injunction the petitioner appeared for a personal hearing on 19-9-1986 and after granting a proper hearing to the representatives of the petitioner, a speaking order was passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Madurai. The operative part of the order, in effect, can be summed up as follows :" For the demand pertaining to the period 1-3-1979 to 31-5-1981, the show cause notice dated 12-5-1983 issued to the petitioner answerable to the collector does not suffer from the point of lack of jurisdiction and is not hit by limitation. The company may therefore give their reply and argue their case on merits. "The demand for the second period 1-6-1981 to 30-11-1982 is to be decided in the light of the decision to be taken by the price list dated 9-3-1982 filed by the company wherein they had indicated that it is effective from 1-6-1981. Against this order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the CEGAT, Madras and the Tribunal also vide its Order No. 55/87, dated 31-12-1987 held that the Collector of Central Excise, Madurai had the necessary jurisdiction to issue the show cause notice dated 12-5-1983. The Tribunal also observed that the petitioner is at liberty to pursue their case before the Collector as it is open to them in a manner known to law. In view of the above CEGAT Order and the Collector's (Appeals) order dated 8-7-1983 the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Tuticorin Division issued a show cause notice C. No. V/14G/17/ 4/82/VS, dated 27-8-1990 covering the period from 1-6-1981 to 30-11-1982 to show cause to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Tuticorin. After observing the adjudication formalities, the Assistant Collector Tuticorin Division, passed an Order-in-Original No. 22/91 which has been challenged in the present writ petition. Further in this case it is significant to note that the petitioner has admitted that HCl acid cannot materially/technologically manufactured beyond 30-35% concentration - Under such circumstances, the declaration that the concentration of the product is 100% basis was done to suppress the quantity of the HCl acid manufactured and thereby the quantity of the HCl acid manufactured and thereby evade payment of Central Excise duty. In the case of captive consumption the assessable value of a product for payment of Central Excise duty is calculated as per the provisions of Section 4 of the CESA 1944 read with the Valuation Rules of 1975. It is also significant to note that under Rule 6(b)(i) of the Valuation Rules, the value of a product captively consumed would be deducted from the price of comparable goods manufactured and sold by the petitioner or any other assessee. In the present case the petitioner sought approval of the assessable value of HCl acid on the basis of the cost of manufacture under Rule - 6(b)(ii) of Valuation Rules. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Tuticorin however, noticed that the petitioner had sold HCl acid at Rs. 175/- per MT. Therefore by applying Rule 6(b)(i) of the valuatinon Rules the price list was approved enhancing the assessable value to Rs. 175/- P MT. It is thus clear that the product sold by the petitioner could be HCl acid of 30% to 35% concentration only and the price list approved on the basis of such a sale price cannot by any stretch of imagination be claimed as the assessable value of HCL of 100% concentration. Coming to the issue of jurisdiction and limitation, a preliminary order on these two aspects was passed by the Collector of Central Excise on 24-4-1987 which was subsequently confirmed by the South Regional Bench of the CEGAT in its order 55/87 on 31-12-1987. Against this order the petitioner approached this court and according to the respondents, this court on 8-9-1988 passed an order as follows :The learned counsel for the petitioner has today, made the following endorsement :" Writ petition has become infructuous and therefore may be dismissed as withdrawn. "Inview of the above endorsement, the writ petition is dimissed as withdrawn." Thus from all the above it is made very clear that there was a clear failure on their part to declare the full quantity of acid manufactured and consumed by them. Further the respondents have also made clear that in the case of captive consumption assessable value in the product for payment of Central Excise duty is determined in terms of the provisions of Section 4 of the CESA 1944 read with Valuation Rules of 1975. Further the respondents have also made clear that in the case of captive consumption assessable value in the product for payment of Central Excise duty is determined in terms of the provisions of Section 4 of the CESA 1944 read with Valuation Rules of 1975. Under Rule 6(b) (i) of the valuation of the Rules, the value of a product captively consumed will be on the basis of the price of comparable goods manufactured and sold by the assessee or by other assessees. That apart in this case, it has been also made clear that during the period under reference, the entire quantity was utilised for captive consumption, there is no factory gate sale and thereby no factory gate price. Hence the correct procedure for determination of value is by comparison with other manufacturer for. Hence the action taken by the Department to campare the price of these two units is fair and sustainable under Rule 6(b)(i) of Valuation Rules. In view of all the above, the several allegations and contentions raised by the petitioners herein cannot at all be accepted. 9.In support of their case, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on an order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise dated 23-4-1997 and on the basis of the same requested this court to remand the matter. I have perused the said order relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. In the facts, and circumstances of this case and also in the light of my above discussions with regard to the various aspects of this case, I am of the clear view that the above order relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not in any way advance the case of the petitioner or helps them. 10.Therefore, for all the aforesaid reasons and in the facts and circumstances of this case and also in view of my above discussions with regard to the various aspect of this case, I am of the clear view that the petitioners herein have failed to make out any case in their favour and that therefore there is no need for any interferance with the order impugned in this writ petition. Thus the writ petition fails and the same is liable to be dismissed for want of merits. 11. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently WMP. No. 18671/91 also is hereby dismissed.