Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Don't have an account? Register Here
<h1>Court upholds show-cause notice validity, rejects time-barred argument, affirms jurisdiction, directs limitation examination. Audit materials admissible.</h1> <h3>Rategain Travel Technologies (P) Ltd. Versus Union of India</h3> Rategain Travel Technologies (P) Ltd. Versus Union of India - 2016 (45) S.T.R. 493 (Del.) Issues:1. Validity of the show-cause notice issued2. Time-barred nature of the show-cause notice3. Jurisdiction of the Principal Commissioner4. Examination of limitation issueAnalysis:1. Validity of Show-Cause Notice:The petitioner challenged the show-cause notice dated 21.04.2016, arguing it was untenable and issued without jurisdiction. Citing a Division Bench judgment in Travelite (India) vs. Union of India, the petitioner contended that the notice was invalid as the materials were obtained during an audit when the rule in question was considered ultra vires. However, the court held that mere procurement of materials in an unauthorized manner does not render them inadmissible in India, unlike in the United States. The court rejected the argument that the materials could not be used for issuing the notice.2. Time-Barred Show-Cause Notice:The petitioner also raised the issue of the show-cause notice being time-barred. The court found this issue premature for its examination and deemed it best left to the concerned authority to decide based on the facts presented, as it involves a mixed question of fact and law.3. Jurisdiction of the Principal Commissioner:Regarding the jurisdiction of the Principal Commissioner who issued the show-cause notice, the court noted that the official held the rank as defined by the Central Excise Act, 1944, and was authorized to issue the notice despite being assigned an audit task. The court ruled that the officer's rank and duties did not inhibit his authority to issue the notice, dismissing the argument of lack of jurisdiction.4. Examination of Limitation Issue:The court granted the petitioner one week to respond to the show-cause notice if not already done. The writ petition was ultimately dismissed, with the court directing the concerned authority to examine the limitation issue, considering it a mixed question of fact and law best left for the authority to decide based on the specific circumstances.In conclusion, the court upheld the validity of the show-cause notice, rejected the time-barred argument as premature, affirmed the jurisdiction of the Principal Commissioner to issue the notice, and left the examination of the limitation issue to the concerned authority.