9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 980X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duly registered with the Central Excise Authorities and the Unit was also licensed to operate as a 100% EOU for the manufacture of cotton fabrics, blended fabrics, cotton yarn and staple yarn of different blends for export out of India. In these writ petitions, the petitioner is challenging the show cause notice Nos.22 and No.21 of 2001 dated 07.11.2001 dated 01.11.2001 respectively, wherein, the respondent demanded the petitioner to show cause as to why a sum of Rs. 6,15,58,731/- and Rs. 2,26,52,858/- respectively should not be recovered towards component of excise duty allegedly not paid for the clearance of grey and processed fabrics from the 100% EOU during the period 1994 to 1996 in Show Cause Notice No.22/01 and for the period 1993 to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ple opportunity to put forth their contentions before the authorities concerned and to satisfy the authorities concerned about the absence of case for proceeding against the person against whom the show-cause notices have been issued. Abstinence from interference at the stage of issuance of show cause notice in order to relegate the parties to the proceedings before the authorities concerned is the normal rule. However, the said rule is not without exceptions. Where a show cause notice is issued either without jurisdiction or in an abuse of process of law, certainly, in that case, the writ court would not hesitate to interfere even at the stage of issuance of show cause notice. The interference at the show cause notice stage should be rare ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the person chargeable with the duty requiring him to show cause why he should not pay the amount specified in the notice. Even in both the notices, the respondent had demanded the component of excise duty for the period ending the year 1996, however, the show cause notices were issued in the month of November 2001. When that being the case, the demand made by the respondent under Section 11 A of the Central Excise Act, is clearly barred by limitation. If the contention of the learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent that the respondent is proceeding under the Bond dated 03.10.1996 is accepted, then appropriate proceedings should have been initiated under the Customs Act and not under the Central Excise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
