1994 (1) TMI 108

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... We have heard both sides. 3.The appellants have sought for quashing the show cause notice dated 30-8-1993 bearing O.C. No. 93/93 and also the trade notice dated 5-2-1993 bearing No. 12/93 issued by the Additional Collector of Central Excise (Technical), Madras. The trade notice is issued on the basis of the circular issued by the Board in File No. 261/76/2/88-CX. 8 (Circular No. 2/93, dated 12-1-1993). Under the show cause notice, the appellant has been directed to show cause to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Madras II Division, as to why the goods mentioned in the show cause notice should not have been removed under Rule 57F(4) and as to why a duty of Rs. 16,37,827/- should not be demanded for the ash and residue and scrap ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....Normally, the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not exercised in favour of a party who approaches this Court challenging the  show cause notice and it is only in exceptional cases, the writ petition is entertained and the validity of the show-cause notice is gone into, because the party to whom the show-cause notice is issued has to file its objections and the adjudicating authority has to decide it. The jurisdiction is not normally exercised because even after the adjudication, there is a right of appeal provided to the aggrieved party and thereafter there is a second appeal to the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal; therefore, learned single Judge is justified in refusing to exercise t....