Customs show-cause notice cannot be quashed at the notice stage on limitation alone when no exceptional writ grounds are shown.

A writ petition challenging a customs show-cause notice and corrigendum on limitation grounds was not entertained, as the drawback rules did not contain an express limitation period and Section 28 of the Customs Act could be used only as a broad analogy. The Court held that limitation in such matters is fact-specific and cannot be determined in the abstract at the notice stage. It reiterated that writ jurisdiction is ordinarily not used to quash a show-cause notice unless there is lack of jurisdiction, settled law is being reopened, mala fides, or pre-determination, none of which was shown. The notice and corrigendum were therefore left intact, while the respondent was directed to decide the limitation objection first and proceed with adjudication.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ petition challenging a customs show-cause notice and corrigendum was liable to be entertained on the ground of limitation, and whether the notice deserved to be quashed at the show-cause stage.

Analysis: The petition was founded only on limitation. The drawback rules invoked did not prescribe any express period of limitation, and the Court noted that the petitioner's reliance on the limitation structure in Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 could only provide a broad analogy. The Court distinguished the cited precedent on excess drawback recovery, holding that limitation in such matters depends on the facts of each case and cannot be decided in a vacuum at the notice stage. The Court reiterated that writ jurisdiction is ordinarily not exercised to quash a show-cause notice, except in exceptional cases such as lack of jurisdiction, settled law being reopened, mala fides, or pre-determination. On the facts, none of those exceptions was made out. At the same time, the Court directed the respondent to decide the limitation issue first while proceeding with adjudication in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The show-cause notice and corrigendum were not quashed. The petitioner was directed to file a further reply, and the respondent was directed to adjudicate the matter, including the limitation objection first, within the stipulated time.

---