2018 (2) TMI 821
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Central Excise & Customs [reported in 2000 (117) ELT 281]; (ii) Virlon Textile Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise [reported in 2007 (211) ELT 353]; (iii) Sarla Performance Fibers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise [reported in 2016 (336) ELT 577]; and (iv) Commissioner Vs. Ginni International Ltd. [reported in 2007 (215) ELT. A102]; and a decision of this Court in the case of Norton Intec Rubbers (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Madras, declined to issue a writ of prohibition, prohibiting the Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore, from proceeding further with the show cause notice dated 24.04.2002. 2. Though, Mr.K.Jayachandran, learned counsel for the appellant reiterated the grounds of challenge and further contended that as per t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppropriate amount equal to the aggregation of the duties of customs which is leviable on the same. b) Rule 173 B: In as much as the assessee claimed ineligible exemption under notification No.2/95 dated 4.1.95 for clearance of the goods to DTA. 8. As the assessee had furnished incorrect details to MEPZ and got approval for clearance of DTA sales, it appears that they had indulged in wilful mis-statement of the relevant facts, by an act of fraud with an apparent intention to evade payment of duty and in gross contravention of the above cited provisions. Hence, it appears that provisions under proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 are applicable in this case." 4. Above said facts, have been taken note ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ls to the MEPZ and obtained approval for clearance of goods to the DTA and the provisions of Rules 9(1) and 173F of the Central Excise Rules read with Proviso to Section 3(1)(b) of the Act stand attracted, in as much as they cleared the goods in question without discharging the appropriate amount equal to the aggregate of the duties of customs, which are leviable on the same. Rule 173B of the Rules also stands attracted in as much as the petitioner claimed ineligible exemptions under Notification No.2/95 for clearance of goods to the DTA. 23. Thus, it is stated that since the petitioner had indulged in wilful mis-statement of relevant facts with an apparent intention to evade payment of duty, the Proviso to Sub-Section (1) of Section 11A ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gularity in the availment of concession under the DTA sales furnishing inflated export sales, is purely a factual issue, which has to be agitated by the petitioner before the Adjudicating Authority. Whether or not there has been inflation and whether the respondent was justified in arriving at the actual NFEP at 3.95% is correct or otherwise, has to be thrashed out before the Adjudicating Authority. After the factual scenario becomes clear, then only a situation arises for applying the legal principle. This Court would not have been wholly justified to examine the four decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner as to their applicability or otherwise. However, having been convinced that the impugned show cause notice cannot be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....legality of the show-cause notices stalling enquiries as proposed and retarding investigative process to find actual facts with the participation and in the presence of the parties. Unless the High Court is satisfied that the show-cause notice was totally non est in the eye of the law for absolute want of jurisdiction of the authority to even investigate into facts, writ petitions should not be entertained for the mere asking and as a matter of routine, and the writ petitioner should invariably be directed to respond to the show-cause notice and take all stands highlighted in the writ petition. Whether the show-cause notice was founded on any legal premises, is a jurisdictional issue which can even be urged by the recipient of the notice an....