https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355400 A challenge to a show-cause notice under Central Excise law failed because writ jurisdiction is not ordinarily used to stall adjudication at the notice stage. The notice alleged breach of concessional clearance conditions and sought extended-period, penalty, and interest consequences; the Court treated the disputed matters as largely factual, including eligibility of clearances, details furnished to the Development Commissioner, and net foreign exchange earnings. Interference was justified only if the notice was wholly without jurisdiction or patently illegal, which was not shown. The writ appeal was therefore not maintainable, the dismissal of the writ petition was sustained, and the appellant was left to answer the notice before the adjudicating authority. en-us Thu, 01 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 08 Sep 2018 13:17:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355400 A challenge to a show-cause notice under Central Excise law failed because writ jurisdiction is not ordinarily used to stall adjudication at the notice stage. The notice alleged breach of concessional clearance conditions and sought extended-period, penalty, and interest consequences; the Court treated the disputed matters as largely factual, including eligibility of clearances, details furnished to the Development Commissioner, and net foreign exchange earnings. Interference was justified only if the notice was wholly without jurisdiction or patently illegal, which was not shown. The writ appeal was therefore not maintainable, the dismissal of the writ petition was sustained, and the appellant was left to answer the notice before the adjudicating authority. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 01 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355400