9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 572X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ard Mr. Satish Parasaran, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. V. Sundareswaran, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. 2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 6.5.2014 issued by the respondent as well as the consequent Statement of Demand dated 1.5.2015 and quash the same as arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction. 3.1 The petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner company. Many changes were effected to the plant with respect to capacity, technology, market and many other factors. Through the said measures, the capacity of the steel plant was expanded from 0.3 Million Tonnes per annum to 1 MTPA over the years. The petitioner has also erected and commissioned a second line of steel melting shop, sinter plant, air separation plant, blasts furnace an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsumption sought by the respondent department. Thereafter, no further clarification was sought by the respondent. However, all of a sudden, by way of impugned Show Cause Notice dated 6.5.2014 as well as the consequent Statement of Demand dated 1.5.2015, the respondent directed the petitioner to show cause as to why excise duty to the tune of Rs. 753,55,21,165/- should not be levied on it for the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... company have to file their objections. 6. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, mere issuance of show cause notice itself is questioned and under such circumstances, the question of reply does not arise. 7. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the materials. 8. Pointing out certain lapses and contraventions of the provisions of the Act and Rules, related to the ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
