2026 (7) TMI 153

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....under the Companies Act, 1956. The Petitioner is, inter alia, engaged in the business of supply of goods including "Tobacco Products" under the brand name of "Afzal". The Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition challenging the show cause notice bearing No. CEX/P-I/AE/ADC/01/2024-25, dated 9th August, 2024, issued by the Respondent No. 3, i.e., the Additional Commissioner (Anti Evasion), CGST & Central Excise, Pune - I, proposing to recover an amount of Rs.10,89,24,979/- as National Calamity Contingent Duty ("NCCD" for short) along with interest and penalty. 2. The case of the Petitioner is that under the Notification No. 26/2001-CE, dated 11th May, 2001, tobacco products used for smoking through "hookah" ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t is clear that the matter has been proceeded with a predetermined mindset. Under such circumstances, submits Mr. Shah, no practical purpose will be served in filing show cause reply by the Petitioner, since the outcome of the process is evident from the projections made in the show cause notice, which are entirely against the Petitioner. It is on such ground that the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner has made a request before this Court to entertain this Writ Petition and decide the controversy on merit. 5. Opposing the above submissions, Mr. Ram Ochani, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, has submitted that the plea raised by the Petitioner before this Court can also be raised in the show cause reply and s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....arned Senior Counsel Mr. Shah appearing for the Petitioner that the show cause notice should not have contained any projection which may prima facie be prejudicial to the interest of the noticee and to that extent, we are of the unhesitant opinion that the show cause notice could have been drafted in a much better fashion so as to avoid projection of any element of bias or pre-meditation on the part of the authorities. However, that alone, in our opinion, would not be sufficient for this Court to conclude that the proceeding initiated under the impugned show cause notice would be unsustainable in law. It would always be open for the adjudicating authority to take appropriate view in the matter after considering the show cause reply and also....