Page 168 - ELT_1_1st April 2020_Vol 372_Part

54 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

4.2 A similar issue arose with respect to the petitioner’s operations in
Kerala, which stood finally resolved in favour of the petitioner by order dated 8-
2-2005 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (herein-
after referred to as “CESTAT”), Bangalore [2005 (186) E.L.T. 344 (Tri.-Bang.)].
4.3 According to the petitioner, 25 Show Cause Notices are issued from
28-8-2002 till 26-5-2017 covering the period from August, 1997 to October, 2016
all of which are now in clear breach of statutory mandate of Section 11A(11) of
the Customs Act. In the case of the petitioner, the issue itself has been resolved
by CESTAT, Bangalore, against which no appeal has been preferred by the De-
partment. Thus, by way of present petition, impugned 25 Show Cause Notices
are challenged in this petition.
5. We have heard Mr. Joseph Kodhiantera, Learned Senior Counsel as-
sisted by Mr. Hardik P. Modh, Learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. P.Y.
Divyeshvar, Learned Advocate for the respondents.
6. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the issue in-
volved in the present petition is no longer res integra and the show cause notice
issued by the respondent No. 4 herein are in clear breach of the statutory man-
date of the Section 11A(11) of the Customs Act and can no longer be sustained. In
support of his submissions he placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the
case of M/s. Siddhi Vinayak Syntex Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors. reported in
2017 (352) E.L.T. 455. It his further submission that the issue of the impugned
show cause notices has arisen with respect to the petitioner operation in Kerala.
He submitted that the issue is finally resolved in favour of the petitioner by an
order dated 8-2-2005 passed by the CESTAT, Bangalore and has attained finality.
He, therefore, urged that the petition may be allowed and the impugned show
cause notices may be quashed and set aside.
7. Mr. P.Y. Divyeshvar, Learned Advocate for the respondents submit-
ted that present petition is not maintainable as the impugned show cause notices
have been taken out of the call book and personal hearing has already fixed vide
communication dated 3-12-2018. He also submitted that the petitioner can avail
of the alternative remedy for redressal of his grievance. He relied upon para 2.1
of the affidavit-in-reply to buttress his submissions, which reads as under :
“2.1 The petition is not maintainable and required to be dismissed on the
ground of non-fulfillment of “Sine Qua Non” that no demand no refusal for
issuance of writ of mandamus and other writs. The petitioner could have
availed of the remedy available to them under the law for the grievance of
the same. It is most respectfully submitted that the captioned petition may
be dismissed due to the fact that the main grievance raised by the petitioner
in the captioned petition is against the transfer of the impugned 25 show
cause notices to the call book and resultant delay in adjudication of the
case. In this regard, it is submitted that the grievance of the petitioner has
been redressed. The impugned 25 show cause notices have been take out of
the call book and personal hearing has been fixed for 14-12-2018 at 11.30
A.M. before the Commissioner. A copy of the letter F. No.
V(15)14/D.Wag/Dem/Apollo/16-17, dated 3-12-2018 issued by Shri S.K.
Roy, Superintendent (Adjudication Section - Commr. Power) CGST and
Central Excise, Vadodara-I is annexed as R-1 for the ready reference.”
8. We have heard Learned Advocates of either side and we have also
perused the documents on record. It is undisputed fact that the issue involved in

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st April 2020  216