TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 1083X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Anita Chaudhry, JJ. Shri Jagmohan Bansal, Advocate, for the Petitioner. ORDER [Order per : Ajay Kumar Mittal, J.]. - Challenge in this petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is for quashing Show Cause Notice dated 10-3-2014, Annexure P.1 whereby respondent No. 2 has called upon the petitioner to show cause to respondent No. 3 as to why period of six months prescribed under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 (in short, the Act ) be not further extended for six months. 2. A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in the petition may be noticed. The petitioner is engaged in the business of trading of imported automobile parts. It was directly importing au ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondent authorities many times for release of the goods but they neither released the goods nor issued show cause notice. Instead, the respondent issued the impugned show cause notice to the petitioner as to why period prescribed under Section 110(2) of the Act should not be further extended for six months. Hence the present petition by the petitioner. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon judgments in TRF Limited v. Commr. of C.Ex. Service Tax, Jamshedpur, 2013 (293) E.L.T. 172 (Jhar.), Simens Limited v. State of Maharashtra, 2007 (207) E.L.T. 168 (S.C.) = 2007 (5) S.T.R. 3 (S.C.) and Oryx Fisheries Private Limited v. Union of India, 2011 (266) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of S. 23 of the Act, and then ask for a case to be stated upon a question of law for the opinion of the High Court under S. 24 of the Act. The Act provides for a complete machinery to challenge an order of assessment, and the impugned orders of assessment can only be challenged by the mode prescribed by the Act and not by a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution. It is now well recognised that where a right or liability is created by a statute which gives a special remedy for enforcing it, the remedy provided by that statute only must be availed of. This rule was stated with great clarity by Willes, J. in Wolverhampton New Water Works Co. v. Hawkesford, (1859) 6 CBNS 336 at p. 356 in the following passage : There are three classes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
