TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (7) TMI 1382
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed by the authorities from time to time. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a company engaged in the manufacture and export of soya products namely, soya meal, soya flex, soya grits, soya flour, etc. The petitioner is exporting residue left from the extraction of soyabean oil and other variant suitable for use as cattle feed. 4. On 4-4-2016, a show cause notice for misclassification of the export product for obtaining incentive for higher amount has been issued on the ground that the petitioner is exporting residue left from the extraction of soyabean oil which is covered under Chapter Heading 2304 and that by misclassification the petitioner's export product falling under Chapter Head No. 2304 of the Central ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the petitioner to file reply latest by 8-5-2016 failing which such action as deemed fit under FTDR Act, 1992 will be initiated against him apart from placing the petitioner firm in DEL without any prior intimation. 8. On 6-5-2016, again a letter was issued by the petitioner and this letter was replied by the department on 13-5-2016 stating therein that no proper reply has been filed by the petitioner hence, name of the petitioner firm has been placed in DEL and further directed the petitioner to surrender all the Duty Credit Scrips (as per list attached), if not utilized already, or pay whole amount of the scrips value i.e. 4.26 crores along with 18% interest thereon, within 10 days from the date of issue of the letter, failing which ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of the documents mentioned in the show cause notice. 10. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner relying on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of C. Ex., Bangalore v. Brindavan Beverages (P) Ltd. reported as 2007 (213) E.L.T. 487 (S.C.). Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur v. Flock (India) Pvt. Ltd. reported as 2000 (120) E.L.T. 285 (S.C.) and Rajkamal Builders (P) Ltd. v. State of M.P. & Ors., reported as 2016 [1] M.P.L.J. 373 and submitted that the respondent No. 1 committed a serious error in issuing show cause notice without changing the assessment order made by the custom authorities and unless the classification is changed in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the law, the notice is without j....