TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (4) TMI 185
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....titioner failed to comply with the said condition, the Range Officer reported the matter to the Central Excise, Tuticorin and the Divisional Central Excise Officer, visited the petitioner's factory on 08.04.2010 and found that the petitioner was not in possession of the challans pertaining to the period from 01.03.2009 to 30.09.2009. 2.According to the respondent, the challans pertaining to the above period were seized at the Madurai Railway Station on 09.04.2010 and therefore, the petitioner has failed to comply with the vital condition viz., not possessing the job work challans from job workers within 180 days, the notice, dated 08.06.2010 was issued directing the petitioners to reverse the amount of Rs.315,91,42,459/- along with interest. 3.The 4th respondent also issued a letter, dated 09.06.2010 to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Division III, Silvassa, on the basis of the order passed by the 4th respondent against the petitioner's Company, dated 08.06.2010 calling for the reports from various divisions under the jurisdiction of the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Division III, Silvassa, about the action taken against the petitioner'....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....p.m. and Mr.S.Varadharajan was denied the access to have legal assistance and he was produced before the Judicial Magistrate, Tuticorin, for an in-transit custody at 1.00 p.m. on 24.07.2010 and he was remanded till 26th July 2010 and thereafter, publications were made through Media and Press that the petitioner's Company have evaded Rs.750 Crores of customs duty due to serious Advance License Violation and later, Mr.S.Varadharajan was produced before Jurisdictional Economic Offences Court at Madurai and he was remanded to the judicial custody for 15 days and thereafter, show causes notices were issued purportedly under section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Section 108 of Customs Act, 1962 by the 6th respondent and the show cause notices were issued to Mr.Vinod Bhandawat, the Chief Finance Officer and Mr.Shivaprakash M Arali, Associate Manager-IDT of the petitioner's Company and these two show cause notices are challenged in the writ petition No.9745 of 2010. 6.It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel Mr.M.Venkataraman that the 6th respondent has no jurisdiction to issue such show cause notices and as per the Notification No.83/2004, Cus(NT), dated 30.06.2004....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l appearing for the respondents, the issuance of show cause notices, which are impugned in the writ petition, have nothing to do with the proceedings viz., W.P.(MD)Nos.8123 and 8135 of 2010 and according to the information gathered by the respondents, there was evasion of Rs.750 Crores of customs duty and therefore, a show cause notice was issued and the Officers have got jurisdiction to issue such notification as per Board's Notification No.31/97-Cus.(N.T), dated 07.07.1997 and therefore, it cannot be contended that the 6th respondent has no jurisdiction to issue the show cause notifications. He, therefore, submitted that the writ petitions are not maintainable. 13.He further submitted that even on 05.05.2010, a report was submitted by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Tuticorin, to the Commissioner of Central Excise, Tirunelveli and the Commissioner of Central Excise, Tirunelveli, also in-turn submitted a letter to the Chief Central Excise Officer, Coimbatore, about the misuse of Advance License Scheme and subsequent evasion of duty and the mis-utilization of CENVAT Credit and on the basis of the statement given by Mr.S.Varadharajan on 27.07.2010, the respon....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is the Competent person to issue show cause notice. 17.Further, in the judgments reported in 2008(231) E.L.T.397(SC) in the case of Union of India vs. Padam Narain Aggarwal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the power of the Customs Officers to issue summons and held that the power to issue summons to elicit truth from a person examined and that cannot be challenged. It is further held that that the power to arrest a person by the Customs Officer is statutory in character and that cannot be interfered with. 18.Further, in the judgment reported in 2007(212)E.L.T.165(SC) in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta vs. M.M.Exports, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if the Department collected any material in accordance with law, they are entitled to proceed against a person, by issuance of show cause notice and that cannot be stated that the Officials are biased in their action. 19.Further, in the judgment reported in (2006) 12 SCC 28, in the case of Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:- "13. It is well settled by a series of decisions of this Court that ordinarily no writ lies against a charg....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the show cause notice stage should be rare and not in a routine manner. Mere assertion by the writ petitioner that notice was without jurisdiction and/or abuse of process of law would not suffice. It should be prima facie established to be so. Where factual adjudication would be necessary, interference is ruled out. " 21.Further, in the judgment reported in (2004) 3 SCC 440 in the case of Special Director & another v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse & another, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:- "This Court in a large number of cases has deprecated the practice of the High Courts entertaining writ petitions questioning legality of the show-cause notices stalling enquiries as proposed and retarding investigative process to find actual facts with the participation and in the presence of the parties. Unless the High Court is satisfied that the show-cause notice was totally non est in the eye of the law for absolute want of jurisdiction of the authority to even investigate into facts, writ petitions should not be entertained for the mere asking and as a matter of routine, and the writ petitioner should invariably be directed to respond to the show-cause notice and take....