A.Lala, J. - (1.) The petitioners challenged a show caused-cum-demand notice under section 11A(1) of the Central Excise & Salt Act, 1944 issued by the Collector I, Central Excise, Calcutta - II, Collectorate, Calcutta. Under normal circumstances, writ Court is very slow in interfering with any show cause notice. However, this is not show cause notice simpliciter but a show cause-cum-demand notice which is obviously derived from a reason to believe that there is a genuine cause of issuance of such notice. Whether the writ Court will interfere or will not interfere that will depend upon various circumstances. It is well settled by now that the Writ Courts are maintaining restraint in interfering with the disputes which are to be adjudicated by the authority wherefrom alternative remedy is available. A show cause notice may be construed as an initial stage of a process of an Executive authority. Therefore it is needless to say that in such circumstances, Court should not interfere with the same. In a recent judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (1998)8 SCC 1 (Wharpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & Ors.) the Supreme Court reiterated the constant view that there is no bar for the writ jurisdiction of the High Court in interfering with any of the disputes but if any bar exists the same is self-imposed. However, in a case of violation of principles of natural justice, fundamental rights, vires or when any decision making process or decision is without jurisdiction the writ Court should interfere with the same. This is such a case where the jurisdiction of the authority is under challenge.
(2.) At the initial stage, in entertaining the writ petition a Bench of this Court was pleased to take up a prima facie view about the entertainability of the writ. An interim order was passed. By the passage of time long eight years have elapsed. Parties have exchanged their affidavits. Ultimately, it has placed under the hearing "old matters" and subsequently under "old adjourned matters" before this Court.
(3.) Mr. Abhijit Chatterjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the notice dated 3rd April 1995 is time barred. Therefore, issuance of the same is without jurisdiction. At the relevant point of time, a period of six months for issuance of such notice when it was found that the excise duty has not been levied or paid or has been short levied or short paid or erroneously refunded was available to the authority. However, such period can only be extended when such levy or payment or short levy or short payment or erroneous refund is arising by reason of fraud, collusion or any willful mis-statement or suppression of facts or contravention of the provisions of the Act or Rules made thereunder with intent to evade payment of duty by such person or his agent.;