https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47571 Writ interference with show cause notices is permissible where the notices are wholly without jurisdiction or, on their face, fail to disclose the statutory ingredients for the proposed penal action. The Bombay HC held that the notices here did not allege that the petitioners, acting as auditors, acquired, possessed, or otherwise dealt with excisable goods with the requisite knowledge or reason to believe that they were liable to confiscation under Section 9(1)(bbb) and Rule 209A. Subsequent affidavits could not cure those jurisdictional defects. The notices were therefore quashed as non est, and the petitioners were not required to undergo departmental adjudication on defective notices. en-us Wed, 16 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 11 May 2024 12:26:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47571 Writ interference with show cause notices is permissible where the notices are wholly without jurisdiction or, on their face, fail to disclose the statutory ingredients for the proposed penal action. The Bombay HC held that the notices here did not allege that the petitioners, acting as auditors, acquired, possessed, or otherwise dealt with excisable goods with the requisite knowledge or reason to believe that they were liable to confiscation under Section 9(1)(bbb) and Rule 209A. Subsequent affidavits could not cure those jurisdictional defects. The notices were therefore quashed as non est, and the petitioners were not required to undergo departmental adjudication on defective notices. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 16 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47571