1990 (10) TMI 86

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ued under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. 2. Hearing Counsel on either side and going through the impugned notice, we are satisfied that this is not a case warranting interference in our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Indeed, this Court rarely interferes at the show cause notice stage. However, in view of the arguments advanced in extenso by Mr. Taleyarkhan, we have .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e see no good reason why the petitioners, if aggrieved, should not avail the provided opportunity of showing cause against the notice and raising in reply thereto all such contentions as advised. We refrain from touching the merits of the dispute or make any observations thereon, lest the same affect, one way or the other, the proceedings hereafter pursuant to the said notice. 4. Mr. Taleyarkhan .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... uarantees of a nationalised bank of amount equivalent to the amount of duty (excluding penalty, if any) together with interest thereon at the rate of 15 per cent per annum from the due date till actual payment. The bank guarantee or guarantees, as the case may be, shall be kept alive and operating till the hearing and final disposal of the proceedings under the Central Excises and Salt Act and for .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X