https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46031 Interference with a Central Excise show cause notice under Article 226 is exceptional and is not justified merely because the notice is disputed. An earlier writ order concerning the lessee's registration and notification benefit did not decide the genuineness of the lease transaction or the present petitioner's excise liability, so it did not bar the Revenue from examining those issues. Proceedings under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act remain competent where non-levy or short levy is alleged on grounds including suppression, misstatement, fraud, or a colourable transaction. Whether the lease was genuine or a device to evade duty required factual determination by the departmental authority, not writ adjudication at the notice stage. en-us Tue, 23 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 15 Jul 2010 12:50:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46031 Interference with a Central Excise show cause notice under Article 226 is exceptional and is not justified merely because the notice is disputed. An earlier writ order concerning the lessee's registration and notification benefit did not decide the genuineness of the lease transaction or the present petitioner's excise liability, so it did not bar the Revenue from examining those issues. Proceedings under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act remain competent where non-levy or short levy is alleged on grounds including suppression, misstatement, fraud, or a colourable transaction. Whether the lease was genuine or a device to evade duty required factual determination by the departmental authority, not writ adjudication at the notice stage. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 23 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46031