TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (2) TMI 522
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to the show cause notice dated 24.01.2020, issued by respondent No.2, which is Annexure A-1 to the memo of this writ petition. It is contended by learned counsel that (a) show cause notice (SCN) issued by respondent No.2 is barred by time and (b) Respondent No.2 does not have the power, jurisdiction and authority to issue the aforementioned SCN. Moreover, learned counsel submits that the grievance ventilated in the present petition is covered by various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court and other High Courts in favour of the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon State of Punjab v. Bhatinda District Co-op. Milk P. Union Ltd.; 2007 (217) E.L.T. 325 (S.C.), Madina (UZ) Impex v. Union of India; 2019 (368) E.L.T. 555 (Del.) and Famina Knit Fabs v. Union of India; 2020 (371) E.L.T. 97 (P & H) and submits that the question of the SCN being time barred be decided by this Court at the threshold. 4. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner at length and looked into the facts of the present case. Some crucial facts that emerge are enumerated below :- (a) Case of the respondent as set out in the SCN is that the pet....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Ethiopia during the period from March, 2013 to September, 2013 under Special Focus Market scheme. "New Era" had filed 203 Shipping bills declaring FOB value of Rs. 102,25,88,997/- for purported export to Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Sudan and Ethiopia under SFMS (as detailed in Annexure-A attached to the SCN). Further, it was also noticed that against the said exports, the exporting firm was issued duty credit scrips/authorisation under SFMS for export of product to notified market/countries (as listed in Appendix 37C of HBP vol.1) by DGFT, Delhi, as per para 3.14 of FTP 2009-2014 and same were sold to various importers in India for availing duty exemption for import of goods." (emphasis supplied) Thus, from a reading of the SCN, it appears that the petitioner had filed 203 shipping bills declaring FOB value of Rs. 102,25,88,997/- for purported export to Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Sudan and Ethiopia under SFMS. All these shipping bills were to be verified by the Department by cross-checking with the other concerned Departments/Officers. Similarly, during the course of investigation, TR-I/TR-II copies of the shipping bills were to be verified. As the port of discharge and the country of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on was raised by the respondent that notice was issued after five years and therefore, the demand of duty was time-barred as per the provisions of Section 28 of the Customs Act. That contention was accepted by the Tribunal on the ground that as the notice was issued beyond the permissible limit of five years provided under Section 28 of the Customs Act, the demand was time-barred. The Tribunal also arrived at the conclusion that show-cause notice was issued by invoking the provisions of extended period of limitation by the Assistant Commissioner and hence it was without jurisdiction as per Section 28(1) of the Customs Act. 4. At the time of hearing of this matter, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in such cases Section 28(1) is not applicable and the issue is decided by the decision rendered by this Court in Commr. of Customs (Import) v. Jagdish Cancer and Research Centre [(2001) 6 SCC 483]. 5. In the aforesaid decision, this Court specifically held that in such cases provisions of Section 28(1) of the Customs Act were not attracted because the said section covers cases of duty not levied, short-levied or erroneously refunded etc. Hence, the impugned judgment a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d that the appellant should first raise all the objections before the authority who have issued the show-cause notice and in case any adverse order is passed against the appellant, then liberty has been granted to approach the High Court. 3. The High Court's order was passed way back in 1997. Neither party knows whether the Department has proceeded further and/or whether any order has been passed pursuant to the show-cause notice. Even otherwise, in our view, the High Court was absolutely right in dismissing the writ petition against a mere show-cause notice. We see no reason to interfere. The appeals stand dismissed. There will be no order as to costs." (emphasis supplied) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Haldia v. Krishna Wax Private Limited reported in (2020) 12 SCC 572, has held as under:- "14. It has been laid down by this Court that the excise law is a complete code in itself and it would normally not be appropriate for a writ court to entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and that the person concerned must first raise all the objections before the authority who had issued a show-cause notice and the redressal ....