2016 (12) TMI 811

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . Raj, Sr. Standing Counsel along with Mr. Deepak Anand, Jr. Standing Counsel for the Respondent. ORDER The writ petitioner is aggrieved by issue of the show-cause notice dated 21.04.2016. It is contended that this show-cause notice is untenable besides the fact that the authority issuing it does not possess necessary jurisdiction to do so. 2. The last ground urged in support of the petition .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n the course of the audit conducted previously when the rule was in existence. 4. At the first instance, the petitioner's argument seems attractive. However, two important aspects are to be kept in mind. Firstly, no statute is deemed to be ultra vires or void- it is actually upon the court declaring it to be so, that it is void (refer Gurdev Singh vs. The State of Punjab, 1997). 5. Furthermore, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s no denial of the fact that the official who issued the show cause notice holds the rank of Principal Commissioner of Central Excise as defined by the Central Excise Act, 1944 read along with the rules. That he was assigned audit task is a matter of convenience; it in no way inhibits the officer from issuing the show-cause notice in exercise of primary authority concerned by the statute. Conseque .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X