https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42932 High Court interference under Article 226 was held unwarranted at the show cause notice stage in an excise matter because the notice was based on investigation material, involved disputed facts and mixed questions of fact and law, and disclosed no lack of jurisdiction or legal authority. The challenge to the notice therefore failed. The Court also allowed a conditional arrangement for any future appeal against an adverse adjudication: the petitioners may furnish a bank guarantee from a nationalised bank for the duty and interest component, instead of making cash deposit, excluding any penalty. The writ petitions were dismissed, subject to that limited liberty. en-us Mon, 01 Oct 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 15 Jun 2010 11:16:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42932 High Court interference under Article 226 was held unwarranted at the show cause notice stage in an excise matter because the notice was based on investigation material, involved disputed facts and mixed questions of fact and law, and disclosed no lack of jurisdiction or legal authority. The challenge to the notice therefore failed. The Court also allowed a conditional arrangement for any future appeal against an adverse adjudication: the petitioners may furnish a bank guarantee from a nationalised bank for the duty and interest component, instead of making cash deposit, excluding any penalty. The writ petitions were dismissed, subject to that limited liberty. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 01 Oct 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42932