TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (1) TMI 761
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent calling upon them to show-cause as to why an amount of Rs. 82,49,788/- should not be disallowed and recovered under Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 r/w Rule 6(3A)(C)(iii) of CCR and Proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 and interest at the rate prescribed under Section 75 of the Finance Act 1994 and penalty under Rule 15(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 and also penalty under Section 77 (2) of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. The other Writ Petition in W.P(MD)No.122 of 2017 is filed seeking for a direction forbearing the respondents from issuing any show-cause notices for the years 2012-2013 to 2015-2016. 3. Heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bove submissions, the learned Senior Counsel prayed for issuing Mandamus also in the other writ petition. 6. The learned senior counsel in support of his submissions relied on the decision of the Division Bench of Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court in Mrs. Nirmal Laxminarayan Grover v. Appropriate Authority (Income-Tax Department) and others reported in 1997(223) ITR page No.572. 7. I have given my careful consideration to the above said submissions made by the learned senior counsel. 8. It is not in dispute that the show-cause notice was issued by the Authority, who is having absolute jurisdiction to issue the same. The petitioner neither questions such jurisdiction nor the competency of the first respondent. 9. Therefore....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s also stated in other paragraphs of the show-cause notice that the assessee, who is not entitled to take the entire cenvat credit on the input services which are not used in providing any of the taxable output services and are eligible to take only proportionate Cenvat credit of service tax on common input services used for providing the taxable output service, has however taken Cenvat credit of service tax paid on their input services. 11. Thus, it is the categorical statement of the first respondent in the show-cause notice that the petitioner has availed the Cenvat credit. On the other hand, it is seen that the case of the petitioner as well as the submissions made by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he factual position, I do not think that the learned senior counsel is right in his contention in justifying the maintainability of the Writ Petition challenging the show-cause notice. No doubt, this Court can entertain a writ petition challenging the show cause notice, provided the very jurisdiction of the authority, who issued the show cause notice, is questioned or if it appears to the Court that the show cause notice, on the face of it, is erroneous and illegal. In my considered view none of the above conditions are satisfied in this case. No doubt, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of the Division Bench of Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court to contend that absence of material particulars in the show-ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ained by way of short-circuiting the procedures, especially when a statutory remedy is available for the petitioner to go before the competent original or appellate authority, more particularly, when the factual aspects of the matter have to, necessarily, be gone into only by those authorities vested with such power under the statute. 15. At this juncture, it is relevant to quote the following decisions, which were followed by this Court in very many cases while deciding the similar issue: 1) M/s Nivaram Pharma Private Limited rep. by its Director Sardarmal M.Chordia, Madras -vs- The Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, South Regional Bench, Madras and others reported in (2005)2 MLJ 246(DB). 2) United ....