9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 1224X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ils of the sale made by the petitioner in respect of the entire consignment imported by them. Reliance placed in the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in MALLADI DRUGS PHARMA. LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [ 2004 (3) TMI 67 - SC ORDER ] , wherein the Hon ble Apex Court held Neither party knows whether the Department has proceeded further and / or whether any order has been passed pursuant to the show-cause notice. Even otherwise, in our view, the High Court was absolutely right in dismissing the writ petition against a mere show-cause notice. We see no reason to interfere. The appeals stand dismissed. Taking into consideration the gravity of the contents of the show-cause notice, the writ petitions not entertained at this juncture - petition dismissed. - HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY For the Petitioner : Mr. G. Vidhyadhar Reddy, Learned Counsel For the Respondent : Mr. Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Dy. Solicitor General of India, for the 1st respondent; and Mr. Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, for respondent Nos. 2 to 6. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... consultation was convened between the parties. It was contended by the respondent-Department that from the documents available on record, it appears that the product imported was broken cashew nuts and have been wrongly classified under the Customs Tariff Sub-Heading 23080000 whereas it ought to have been under CTH 08013210. This product under the CTH 08013210 would have attracted BCD @ 30%, SWS @ 10% and IGST @ 5%. 9. It is said that petitioner has submitted his response to the pre-notice consultation. However, dissatisfied with the same, the authorities have now issued the impugned show-cause notice dated 26.05.2023 under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962. It is this show-cause notice which is under challenge in the present writ petition. The impugned show-cause notice has been primarily challenged on the ground of : (a) the authority issuing the show-cause notice not being the competent authority under the Customs Act; (b) the authorities have not taken into consideration the response and explanation given to the department at the time of the pre-notice consultation; (c) the show-cause notice does not deal with the submission of the petitioner made in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion has not been able to satisfactorily put forth convincing documents which would reflect that the petitioner has sold the products to the agencies dealing with animal feeds. According to learned counsel for the respondent-Department, since the petitioner had bought the product itself knowing fully well of the fact that it was unfit for human consumption, further it had bought the product with a specific intention of selling it as animal feeds, in addition the petitioners themselves have tendered a declaration before the respondent-Department of the same to be only meant for use as animal feeds. It was therefore incumbent upon the petitioners to have disclosed providing details of the same so as to ascertain whether it has been used for animal feeds or for any other purpose. Drawing the attention of the impugned show-cause notice, learned counsel for the respondent-Department also submitted that the petitioners in fact did not have sufficient invoices to show that it has been sold to agencies only dealing with animal feeds, rather petty cash sales have been shown that too of small quantities that too made to individuals on cash sales. With all this, learned counsel for the respond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been granted to approach the High Court. 3. The High Court s order was passed way back in 1997. Neither party knows whether the Department has proceeded further and / or whether any order has been passed pursuant to the show-cause notice. Even otherwise, in our view, the High Court was absolutely right in dismissing the writ petition against a mere show-cause notice. We see no reason to interfere. The appeals stand dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. 17. Similarly, in yet another decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Krishna Wax Private Limited (2020 12 SCC 572, the Hon ble Apex Court held as under : 12. It has been laid down by this Court that the excise law is a complete code in itself and it would normally not be appropriate for a Writ Court to entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and that the concerned person must first raise all the objections before the authority who had issued a show cause notice and the redressal in terms of the existing provisions of the law could be taken resort to if an adverse order was passed against such person. For example in Union of India and another vs. Guwahati Carbon Lim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
