https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42902 Writ jurisdiction was described as limited where a challenge is directed at a show cause notice and the disputed questions depend on facts still to be adjudicated. The material showed that the petitioner acted with authority for the company, not as a mere consultant, and this supported proceedings under Rule 198. An alleged defect in service of the notice did not justify quashing the departmental action at the threshold. The notice was also treated as disclosing a sufficient basis for inquiry because whether false or misleading information was knowingly furnished remained a matter for the adjudicating authority. The departmental proceedings were allowed to continue. en-us Fri, 05 Oct 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 15 Jun 2010 09:54:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42902 Writ jurisdiction was described as limited where a challenge is directed at a show cause notice and the disputed questions depend on facts still to be adjudicated. The material showed that the petitioner acted with authority for the company, not as a mere consultant, and this supported proceedings under Rule 198. An alleged defect in service of the notice did not justify quashing the departmental action at the threshold. The notice was also treated as disclosing a sufficient basis for inquiry because whether false or misleading information was knowingly furnished remained a matter for the adjudicating authority. The departmental proceedings were allowed to continue. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 05 Oct 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42902