TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (6) TMI 1235
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t page No. 23, have approached this Court by way of this petition with following prayers : (A) That Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a Writ of Prohibition or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, completely and permanently prohibiting the Respondents, their servants and agents from taking any action against the Petitioners in pursuance of Show Cause Notice No. V(Ch.84)15-6/OA/95, dated 27-12-1995 (Annexure - "C"); (B) That Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, quashing and setting aside Show Cause Notice No. V(Ch.84)15-6/OA/95, 27-12-1995 (Annexure - "C"); (C) Pending hearing and final disposal of the present petition, Your....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Rs. 5,76,09,599/- from M/s. Alidhara Textile Engineers Ltd., Udhna, for various textile machines marketed by them during 1-4-1989 to 30-9-1992. In this show cause notice, penalties were proposed to be imposed on various other parties, some of whom are petitioners in the present case. 3.3 After conduction adjudication of the above referred show cause notice dated 7-4-1904, the Collector of Central Excise, Surat, passed an order No. 34/MP/95, dated 24-5-1995 thereby demanding Central Excise duty from the parties who were proposed to be penalized in the show cause notice, whereas the duty demand raised against M/s. Alidhara Textile Engineers Ltd. was dropped while passing this adjudication order on the basis that the said company was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6/OA/95, dated 27-12-1995 has been issued by the Collector of Central Excise, Surat, to various parties including the petitioners herein. In this show cause notice, the demand of differential excise duty has been raised against individual parties including the petitioners herein for the period from December, 1990 to March, 1993. 3.7 The parties to whom this show cause notice had been served, including the petitioners have filed replies to the show cause notice. Other parties to the above show cause notice including the petitioners have also filed replies to the show cause notice around the same time i.e. August, 1997. Thereafter, the Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat, held a personal hearing on 16-9-1997 when the Advocate and Cons....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e held on 22-9-2016 before the Commissioner. 3.9 The petitioners' advocate, therefore, under the instructions of the petitioners, submitted an application on 19-9-2016 before the Commissioner and requested for time because the case was apparently very old and full papers and information of such an old case were also not readily available. Thereupon, another letter/notice dated 5-10-2016 came to be issued by the Superintendent (Adj.) from the Commissioner's office informing the parties that personal hearing in this case would be held on 19-10-2016. The petitioners' advocate therefore requested the Commissioner to grant another date of hearing because 19-10-2016 was the second last working day before Diwali vacation. Therefore, a fu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Court against revival of the adjudication proceedings proposed by the Central Excise authorities after more than 20 years. This has given rise to filing of this petition, essentially challenging the action of reviving and/or restarting the proceedings under the stale show cause notice dated 27-12-1995. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has placed heavy reliance upon the decision rendered by this Court in case of Siddhi Vinayak Syntex Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, in Special Civil Application No. 19437 of 2016, dated 7-3-2017 [2017 (352) E.L.T. 455 (Guj.)], and invited Court's attention to the observations of the Court in paragraph no. 7.5 and submitted that the present petition and the facts are identical, so far as....