2018 (7) TMI 193

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ns including payment of applicable Customs and other duties. The respondent executed a Bond No.1/923 dated 11.06.1992 with the Assistant Collector of Central Exercise, Tirunelveli undertaking to abide by the conditions stipulated for Rs. 30 crores. On verification of invoices, two types of Domestic Trade Area clearances, (1) Direct sales to textile dealers and (2) Clearance to their own unit viz., Madura Textiles, Vikramasingapuram for further processing and sale were found. But the invoices for the 2nd type of clearances were made in the name of the dealers so as to escape the scrutiny by the Department and to escape assessment under Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. The respondent has filed the writ petition Nos.2783 and 2782 of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows: "30. Normally, the writ court should not interfere at the stage of issuance of show cause notice by the author. In such a case, the parties get ample opportunity to put forth their contentions before the authorities concerned and to satisfy the authorities concerned about the absence of case for proceeding against the person against whom the show cause notices have been issued. Abstinence from interference at the stage of issuance of show cause notice in order to relegate the parties to the proceedings before the authorities concerned is the normal rule. However, the said rule is not without exceptions. Where a show cause notice is issued either without jurisdiction or in an abuse of proc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Limited at Aladiyur and recovered records and incriminating documents relating to EOU under Mahazar dated 11.11.2000. Based on the search and seizure of records, they issued Show Cause Notices on 01.11.2001 and 07.11.2001 respectively. 7. The main contention of the respondent is on the ground of limitation. 8. A careful perusal of records would show that the appellant and respondent executed a bond with the Assistant Collector on 3.10.1996. From the documents seized, it appears that Rs. 2,26,52,858/- [Rupees Two Crores Twenty Six Lakhs Fifty Two Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifty Eight Only] and Rs. 6,15,58,731/- [Rupees Six Crores Fifteen Lakhs Fifty Eight Thousand Seven Hundred and Thirty One Only] respectively were due from the respo....