9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 1285X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 5th May 2005, was granted. Pursuant to the interim orders petitioner has also made certain deposits with Respondent No.2. Petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in the manufacture of exciseable goods namely synthetic yarn. Petitioner had its factory at Piparia Industrial Estate, Silvasa. Petitioner was 100% export oriented unit (EOU) in terms of the import export policy. Petitioner was carrying on its manufacturing activity of synthetic yarn at its factory being Unit-I and Unit-II, both independent units at Pipariya, Silvasa. Unit-I had been licenced under Section 58 of the Act as private bonded warehouse vide licence dated 18th October 1994. Respondent No.2 extended licence for a further period of two years with effect from 18th October 1999. It was further extended for a period of two years with effect from 18th October 2001 and once again for a further period of two years from 18th October 2003 to 31st March 2005. 3. Unit-II of petitioner also was licenced under Section 58 of the Act as private bonded warehouse vide licence dated 14th November 2003. The licence was valid till 31st March 2005. 4. During the course of its business, pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anchanama recorded in other proceedings. Mr.Kantharia submitted that petitioner was known to be repeat offender and had repeatedly breach and contravened the provisions of the Act and rules regulations and committed breach of the conditions of the licence. 8. With the aid of Mr. Shah and Mr. Kantharia we have considered the show cause notice and the impugned order. The entire show cause notice proceeds on the basis of six show cause notices that had been issued to petitioner and an offence have been booked by DRI against petitioner and hence it appears that petitioner has contravened the provisions of Section 71, 72 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Condition No. 6 of licence dated 14th November 2003 and 18th October 1994. There is nothing more in the show cause notice. Therefore, it is quite clear that Respondent No.2 has issued Show Cause Notice on the basis of pending show cause notices and a complaint which were yet to be adjudicated. Mr. Kantharia submits that later some of the show cause notices were adjudicated against petitioner and in one matter it was already adjudicated before show cause notice dated 4th October 2004 was issued. It can be of no assistance to respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rect or controvert the material sought to be relied upon against him. 10. Paragraph No.8 of the judgment of this court in Jugal Kishore Jajodia vs. S.C. Prasad, Chief Engineer (2022) 135 taxmann.com 329 (Bombay) reads as under :- 8. It is settled law that issuance of a show-cause notice is not an empty formality. Its purpose is to give a reasonable opportunity to the affected persons to contend that the apparent consideration as per the agreement to sell is the market price or that there is no undervaluation because of peculiar facts. The appropriate authority should give to the person likely to be affected by the order proposed to be made a notice of the action intended to be taken, inform him about the materials on the basis of which the appropriate authority proposes to take action for preemptive purchase and give a fair and reasonable opportunity to such person to represent his case and to correct or controvert the material sought to be relied upon against him. Hence, in the show-cause notice under Section 269UD of the Act, provisional conclusions are required to be briefly specified. These provisional conclusions are required to be briefly specified so that the affected p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t prime facie conclusion that the power under section 269UD(1) of the Income-tax Act was required to be exercised and the property should be compulsorily purchased. Issuance of a show-cause notice is the preliminary step which is required to be undertaken before giving opportunity of hearing under Section 269UD(1) of the Income-tax Act. 8. While considering the contents of show-cause notice in the matter arising in connection with a disciplinary proceeding under the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1952, the Supreme Court has in the case of B.D. Gupta v. State of Haryana, (1973) 3 SCC 149 : AIR 1972 SC 2472 observed as under (at page 2474) : "There is nothing, however, in the 'Show-Cause Notice' of 26th October 1966 to indicate clearly that the dissatisfaction of Government with the appellant's reply of 18 December 1956 had nothing to do with Charge 1(a). The 'Show-Cause-Notice' merely states in vague general terms that the appellant's reply to the charges and allegations was unsatisfactory. Even if we were to assume, though there is no reasonable ground for this assumption, that Government did not have in mind the contents of Charge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
