Court rules demand notice for excise/customs duties void; must issue show cause notice first.

The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, finding that the demand notice for central excise and customs duties issued without a prior show cause notice violated principles of natural justice and Section 28 of the Customs Act. The court emphasized the mandatory nature of issuing a show cause notice before quantifying duties, rejecting the argument that a post-decisional hearing suffices. The demand notice and adjudication were set aside, with directions for a fresh adjudication with an independent mind and the issuance of a proper show cause notice within a specific timeframe. The writ petition was allowed, and pending petitions were closed without costs.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to demand notice for central excise and customs duties under Customs Act and Central Excise Act. Violation of principles of natural justice due to lack of show cause notice before quantifying the amount. Interpretation of Section 28 of the Customs Act regarding mandatory issuance of show cause notice.

Analysis:
The writ petition challenges a demand notice for payment of central excise and customs duties along with interest, issued without a prior show cause notice, violating principles of natural justice. The petitioner argued that post decisional hearing does not fulfill the requirement of Section 28 of the Customs Act, which mandates issuance of a show cause notice before adjudication. The respondent contended that show cause notice was not necessary in this case, citing a Supreme Court decision. The court examined whether show cause notice is mandatory in such cases.

The court analyzed Section 28(1)(a) of the Customs Act, which requires a show cause notice for duties not levied or short-levied. It concluded that the duty would be payable without the exemption, making show cause notice essential before quantifying the duty. The court emphasized the mandatory nature of Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 28 and the strict construction of fiscal law requirements. Referring to a Supreme Court case, the court highlighted the necessity of a specific format for show cause notices, rejecting the argument that post decisional hearing suffices.

The court distinguished the respondent's cited judgment, emphasizing the importance of a show cause notice before making a demand. It reasoned that post decisional hearing does not serve the purpose of allowing the assessee to object to the demand. The court held that the adjudication and demand notice were against natural justice principles and the mandatory provisions of Section 28. It set aside the demand and directed a fresh adjudication with an independent mind, requiring the issuance of a proper show cause notice within a specific timeframe. The writ petition was allowed, and any pending petitions were closed without costs.

---