TaxTMI Login
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
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court quashes show cause notice due to lack of jurisdictional facts.</h1> <h3>CORE HEALTHCARE LTD. Versus UNION OF INDIA</h3> CORE HEALTHCARE LTD. Versus UNION OF INDIA - 2006 (198) E.L.T. 21 (Guj.) Issues:1. Challenge to show cause notice2. Legality and validity of the impugned notice3. Re-agitation of previously decided issues4. Jurisdictional facts for assumption of jurisdictionDetailed Analysis:1. The petition raised a challenge against the show cause notice issued by respondent No. 4. The petitioner sought various writs to quash the notice and subsequent orders. The main contention was the legality and validity of the notice dated 24-3-2000. The petitioner's advocate clarified that one prayer did not survive due to a specific section of the Finance Act, leaving the focus on the impugned notice's legality.2. The petitioner argued that the issues raised in the notice had already been considered and decided in earlier proceedings from April 1995 to May 1998. The advocate highlighted multiple show cause notices, orders, and appeals where the petitioner had succeeded. It was contended that re-agitating these issues in the new notice was legally untenable due to lack of change in facts or circumstances.3. The respondent authority, represented by Mr. Malkan, claimed that new evidence formed the basis of the impugned notice and requested the court to allow adjudication proceedings to continue. However, the petitioner's advocate argued that no additional material was presented to justify re-opening settled issues. The court noted that the authority failed to establish jurisdictional facts for re-issuing the notice, leading to the quashing of the impugned notice.4. The judgment analyzed each issue raised in the impugned notice, focusing on the classification of products, utilization of Modvat credit, and entitlement to rebate. It referenced previous orders and appeals where these matters were resolved in favor of the petitioner. The court found that the respondent authority lacked the necessary grounds to reinitiate proceedings on the same issues, ultimately ruling in favor of the petitioner and quashing the show cause notice. The respondent was directed to bear the costs of the petition.
TaxTMI 