2023 (6) TMI 1232

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., merely referring to Section 29(2)(e) of the Act. 2. In addition, learned counsel for the petitioner would also state that there is reference therein to the instructions of the Joint Commissioner (North) and thus, according to him, cancellation has been done only based on his instructions. 3. Reference is made to a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kaur & Singh v Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi [1997 (94) ELT 289] and an order passed by the Delhi High Court in the case of Fayiz Nangaparambil vs Union of India [W.P.(c) No. 7477 of 2023 dated 26.05.2023], in support of the submission that show-cause notice being bereft of specific reasons, could not be addressed effectively by the noticee. 4. Per contra, Mrs.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....was subject to a visit / inspection by the authorities, even prior to the issuance of impugned notice and thus the petitioner is well aware of the sequence of events leading upto the issuance of notice itself. The query raised at the time of, and post relates to valuation of the goods exemption and thus, this aspect of the matter is also well within the petitioner's knowledge. In all, the submission that the show-cause notice was non-speaking and the petitioner was aware of the details of the proposals, is found to be misconceived as all facts relating to the same were well within the petitioner's knowledge. 7. In the body of the reply, the petitioner has referred to certain purchase invoices that they state that they are enclosing....