AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 130
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... PRASAD) Heard Ms. L. Mathili, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Anshuman Singh, learned counsel for the Central Excise in all the three writ applications which have been taken up together for consideration. 2. In C.W.J.C. No. 5664 of 2026, following reliefs have been prayed for:- "A writ in the nature of certiorari to quash and cancel the Show Cause Notice No. V (48) 34/B' pur/SCNCell/ Adjn/2008/12868 (hereinafter referred to as the 'SCN/impugned SCN') dated 28.11.2008, SCN No. V(48)(15)35-Adjn/2008/12876 dated 24.12.2025 and SCN No. V(48)39/B'pur/SCN-Cell/Adjn/2008/ 12864 dated 28.11.2008 respectively." 3. In other two writs, similar prayers have been made with only difference with respect to the SCN No. Brief Facts of the Case 4. The brief facts of the case are taken from C.W.J.C. no. 5664 of 2026. The petitioner M/s ITC Ltd. Munger is a manufacturer of cigarettes having its factory at Munger. It manufactures Packaging Materials like Shells, Slides; Printed Sheets, Gold Printed Sheets, Hinged Lid Packets (HLPs) and Card Board Outers (CBOs) also. These packaging materials are cleared by the petitioners to its cigarette factories for captive consu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....given the facts leading to passing of the provisional assessment orders, which were subject matter of challenge by the revenue as well as the petitioners. Attention of this Court has been drawn towards the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise Division, Bhagalpur in Annexure 'P/8' to the writ application. It is submitted that being aggrieved by the order of finalization of assessment to the limited extent that MODVAT credit of Rs. 114.44 lacs were denied, the petitioner had moved before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Patna. The revenue challenged the order of finalization only with respect to valuation aspect. Both the appeals were disposed of vide order dated 23.01.2009 (Annexure 'P/9'). 11. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was partly allowed, therefore, the petitioner challenged the order of the Commissioner (Appeal) before the CESTAT, Kolkata. The CESTAT, Kolkata allowed the appeal of the petitioner vide order no. 77224/2023 dated 09.10.2023 (Annexure 'P/10'). Thus, the issues relating to the rate of duty and valuation stood decided as per the modified order by the appellate authority. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....judgments, the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay and Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta have been pleased to interfere with the show cause notices and the adjudication proceedings which were commenced after long delay. It is submitted that the competent authority, who had issued the notices for personal hearing, is not likely to take into consideration the pleas of the petitioners which have been raised in this Court, therefore, this Court may invoke its extraordinary writ jurisdiction to interfere with the show cause notices. Submissions on behalf of the Respondents 16. Mr. Anshuman Singh, learned counsel for the Central Excise has submitted that the show cause notices were issued in the year 2008 and thereafter, several dates for personal hearing was fixed which would be evident from the correspondences enclosed with the writ applications. Attention of this Court has been drawn towards Annexure 'P/12' onwards. It is submitted that in it's letter dated 31st December, 2008, the petitioners while reading a surprise on receipt of the SCNs submitted inter alia that they had forwarded the subject SCNs to their legal counsel for advice on the subject and they would require at least two mon....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ir submissions. Only after the submissions of the petitioners were rejected, they chose to move the Hon'ble High Court in its writ jurisdiction. 20. It is further submitted that in case of Surendralal Girdharilal Mehta (supra), the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court came across the facts that there had been an inordinate delay in proceeding with the show cause notice causing immense prejudice to the petitioners. The authorities in the said case had failed to disclose or supply to the petitioners' copies of the relevant documents and in the said case, there was no fact showing that the delay was in any way attributed to the petitioners. 21. Learned counsel for the Central Excise submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has put a word of caution in the matter of citing of their Lordship's judgment in the case of Bharat Petroleum Corporation vs. N.R. Vairamani and Anr. reported in (2004) 8 SCC 579 (para '9'). In this regard, the submission of Central Excise Counsel is that the facts of the present case are clearly distinguishable. It would show that the petitioners had not appeared despite notices for personal hearing and kept on writing letters only and the provisional assessment order ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ailable to them. Consideration 24. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner(s) and learned counsel for the Central Excise as also on going through the pleadings available in the writ applications, we have noticed that in this case, the petitioners are seeking quashing of the SCNs of five years which were served upon the petitioners admittedly in the year 2008. 25. This Court would, therefore, extract the show cause notice present at Annexure 'P/11' (page 106 of the writ petition) as under:- "भारत सरकार केन्द्रीय उत्पाद शुल्क एवं सेवा कर आयुकताल्य, पटना तृतीय मंजिल, केन्द्रीय राजस्व संलगनक भवन, वीर चन्द....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....items has been finalized quantifying and demanding the Central Excise Duty amounting to Rs.2,98,14,009.96 (Rupees two crore ninety eight lakh fourteen thousand nine & ninety six paise only) considering these effective rate notifications. 3. Notification No. 67/82-C.E., dated 28.02.1982 (as amended) and Notification No. 135/89-C.E., dated 12.05.1989 (as amended), from time to time, have been taken into consideration while finalizing the Provisional Assessment. These notifications were applicable subject to the full-fillment of certain Conditions laid down therein. 4. Vide the Notification No. 67/82-C.E., dated 28.02.1982 as amended by Notification No. 48/83-C.E., dated 01.03.1983, Notification No. 151/83-C.E., dated 13.05.1983 and Notification No. 79/86-C.E., dated 10.02.1986, articles of Paper or Paper Board falling under the erstwhile T. I. No. 17 (4) of the first schedule to the Central Excise & Salt Act 1944, and now Chapter 48 of the Schedule of the said Tariff Act, had been the exempted from Duty of Excise leviable thereon as was in excess of 15% ad-valorem subject to the conditions: (a) that appropriate Duty of Excise or additional Duty leviable the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e., Shells, Slides, HLP, etc., manufactured by them and classifiable under Chapter 48 after 28.02.1986, consists of sheets of Paper or Paper Board impregnated, coated or covered with plastics, compress together in one or more operations. 7. The said Noticee have not submitted any clarifications as yet. Thus, it appears that the said Noticee have mislead and suppressed the correct rate of Excise Duty by claiming the benefit of above mentioned effective rate notification without fulfilling the specific conditions laid down therein and thus the said Noticee are not eligible for availing exemptions for effective rate Notification and are thus required to pay Duty at the Tariff rate as applicable from time-to-time. 8. Therefore, the said Noticee is hereby called upon to show cause to the Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax, Patna [having his office situated at the 3rd Floor, Central Revenue Annexee Building, Bir Chand Patel Path, Patna-800 001], within thirty (30) days of the receipt of this Notice as to why: (a) The aforesaid short paid Central Excise Duty amounting to Rs.56,65,16,566/-(Rupees Fifty-six crores, sixty-five lakhs, sixteen thousands, five....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....respond and the respondent fixed several dates for hearing. For one reason or another, the petitioner did not participate in the hearing. In such circumstances, prima facie, we agree with the submissions of the learned counsel for the Central Excise that the delay in the adjudication cannot be solely attributed to the department. 28. Although, the learned counsel for the petitioner has invited this Court to enter into the merit of the show cause notices on the ground that the show cause notices are demanding differential duty which are not sustainable as the issues have been settled by the order passed by the CESTAT, Kolkata, the facts remain that CESTAT, Kolkata order (Annexure 'P/10') is dated 09.10.2023 and the submission of the petitioner is required to be considered by the competent authority at first instance. 29. We are of the considered opinion that this Court being a Writ Court need not enter into the validity of the SCNs at this stage as certain issues of facts are required to be gone into with reference to the materials which may be placed before the competent authority. It would be in the domain of the competent authority to examine those documents, adjudicate the....