JUDGMENT
1. This writ petition is directed against the show cause notice dated 3-1-1998, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The petitioner had imported 'Whole Body CT Scanner' and it availed exemption of customs duty under Notification No. 64/88-Cus. dated 1-3-1988. By the impugned show cause notice the petitioner has been called upon to show cause as to why the exemption granted under the said Notification be not withdrawn and petitioner be called upon to pay the customs duty and penalties and other amounts, details of which have been set out in the show cause notice. It is not disputed that the petitioners have already filed a reply to the show cause notice and 26-2-1998 is fixed for personal hearing as it was demanded by the petitioner in reply to the show cause notice. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the show cause notice proceeds on the allegations which are factually incorrect. It is also contended that in response to the show cause notice the petitioner had demanded certain documents and information so as to file an effective reply but without granting the request of the petitioner, the date for personal hearing has been fixed. Yet another ground urged was that the impugned notice is barred by limitation.
2. We have considered the arguments carefully. It is settled that normally a Writ Court would not interfere against a show cause notice. In the instant case the show cause notice proceeds on factual allegations and the petitioner has been accused of that it has not stood by the terms of the Bond which it had executed to comply with the conditions of the Notification under which the exemption was granted. The notice, inter alia, recites that the petitioner has not furnished any installation certificate within the stipulated period and the Hospital did not stand functioning within the prescribed period. It would be seen that the allegations against the petitioner are all factual. If what has been stated in the show cause notice is true, it is difficult to say that there was no justification for issuing the show cause notice. On contrary if the petitioner is able to satisfy the concerned authority that the factual position stated in the show cause notice is incorrect it may result in the discharge of the show cause notice. In these circumstances we are of the opinion that it is not a fit case where this Court should interfere at this stage when the petitioner is only required to show cause.
3. Insofar as the contention that the petitioner has not been furnished with the necessary information and documents demanded is conceived, suffice it to say that on the date fixed for personal hearing the petitioner may show to the concerned authority the relevancy of the documents and the information sought for. We have no reason to believe that if the documents and informations are relevant and are not available with the petitioner as to why the authority would not accede, to the request of the petitioner. The question about the limitation can, as well, be canvassed before the concerned authority and at this stage it is not necessary for this Court to express any concluded opinion.
4. For what has been stated above, the writ petition is rejected in limine.