9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 603X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the first respondent is wholly misconceived – Held that:- It is not a case of prejudging of the issue and that it is not a case of the show cause notice being without jurisdiction - writ petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed in limine. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n support, he placed reliance on the judgment passed by High Court of Madras in the case of Madurai Metal Industries vs. Union of India [1991 (52) ELT 495 (Mad.)] and on the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of ORYX Fisheries Private Limited vs. Union of India [2011 (266) ELT 422 (S.C.)]. He submitted that either the show cause notice be quashed or an order be passed prohibiting the Commissioner from proceeding further with the impugned show cause notice till the final adjudication of the question involved in earlier show cause notice which is regarding validity of the seizure, the proposed confiscation and the excisability of the goods in question. 6. In order to appreciate the submissions made by the learned counsel for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... willfully suppressed the facts of manufacture and clearance of branded manufactured tobacco and therefore, the provisions of extended period as provided under proviso to the Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 appears to be invokable for the recovery of the Central Excise duty not paid by them and the noticee No.1 also appear liable to penalty under the provisions of Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944." (emphasis supplied) 9. Having regard to the aforesaid language of the show cause notice, we are of the view that the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners are of no merit. It is very clear from the impugned show cause notice dated 6.01.2012 that only a prima facie view has been expressed in regard to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the impugned show cause notice. As observed it is for the petitioners to put forward their defences as may be available to them before the Commissioner and pursue him in accordance with law. Our view finds support from the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Standard Chartered Bank & ors. v. Directorate of Enforcement & Ors. (AIR 2006 SC 1301). 11. In the case of Dr. Soumyendra Chandra Gooptu v. Incometax Officer [2005] 148 TAXMAN 199 (CAL.) = 2004 (270) ITR 170, the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court declined to interfere in the show cause notice issued under section 140A(3) and 271(1)(c) of the Incometax Act in which the challenge was made on the ground that the assessment had not been made within the prescribed timelimit. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
