@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
T. Raja, J.@mdashMr. Srinath Sridevan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner challenging the impugned letter dated 12.05.2015 issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Tirunelveli, by which, the petitioner was informed that it is not reasonable to call for the documents which are not cited as relied upon documents in the show cause notice dated 26.12.2014, however the petitioner is at liberty to put forth their points of view in their reply and at the time of personal hearing, submitted that the two directions given by this Court to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Tirunelveli, to furnish copies of the documents on issue wise in a separate cover and directing the same authority to consider the preliminary issue whether the petitioner is ex facie entitled to exemption under Notification Nos. 63/95 dated 16.03.1995 and 4/2006 dated 01.03.2006, have been overlooked, he pleaded.
2. Adding further, he would submit that the petitioner being a mining company, all activities carried on in a mine are entirely exempted from the levy of central excise as per Notification Nos. 63/95 dated 16.03.1995, while so, knowing this fact fully well the respondents on earlier occasion had issued a show cause notice dated 26.12.2014 calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the products viz., Ilemenite, Zircon, Rutile, Sillimanite, leucoxene manufactured out of sea sand (ore) and cleared the same during the period from 01.03.2011 to 31.03.2014 should not be classified as concentrates of Ilemenite, Zircon, Rutile, Sillimanite, leucoxene under chapter sub heading 26140020, 26151000, 26060090 and 26140090 of CETA respectively, while similarly situated persons are granted exemption. The petitioner being a mining company alone cannot be treated differently, hence, they filed W.P(MD) No. 3316 of 2015 before this Court. This Court, by order dated 10.03.2015 refusing to entertain the writ petition purely on the preliminary issue that no writ petition is maintainable to challenge the show cause notice, has granted a clear direction to the department to furnish the relevant documents which are relied on in the show cause notice that the said directions to furnish documents are not fully complied with since all documents are not yet furnished to the petitioner till now.
3. Adding further, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that even after the order dated 10.03.2015 was made in W.P(MD) No. 3316 of 2015 to the surprise of the petitioner, the respondent has rejected the request of the petitioner to furnish the documents in the present impugned order dated 12.05.2015 as a result, the petitioner is not able to give effective reply.
4. He further submitted that when the petitioner has also submitted a preliminary reply raising jurisdiction requesting the respondent to consider if the Exemption Notification Nos. 63/95 dated 16.03.1995 and 4/2006 dated 01.03.2006 will clearly apply to the petitioner''s mine, as per the settled legal position laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in
5. Continuing his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that when the petitioner came to this Court by filing the present writ petition challenging the impugned communication refusing to provide all the documents as per the previous order of this Court dated 10.03.2015 made in W.P(MD) No. 3316 of 2015, again, this Court on 08.07.2015 directed the petitioner to appear before the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Tirunelveli, with a further direction to the said authority to furnish all copies of documents on issue wise in a separate cover with yet another direction to consider the representation of the petitioner to decide first the jurisdictional issue as per the decision in
6. Referring to paragraph 3.2. of the show cause notice, he would further submit that when comparable goods (with the same grade Ilmenite) was given, the petitioner sought for copies of the actual invoices to show that comparable goods had been compared. When the petitioner wanted to know what was the invoice which was referred to therein, so that they can appropriately reply to the false allegation of under invoicing, again, the department refused to furnish the same by saying that huge bunch of invoices are given to you and it is for you to search through them. It is a well settled legal position that no one facing departmental enquiry can effectively meet the charges unless the copies of the relevant statements and documents to be used against him are made available to him. In the absence of such copies, the concerned person cannot prepare his defence, cross examine the witnesses and pinpoint the inconsistencies with a view to show that the allegations are incredible. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a judgment of the Apex Court in
7. Again, drawing the notice of this Court to the interim order passed in the present writ petition on 08.07.2015, Mr. Srinath Sridevan, learned counsel would submit that the petitioner is engaged in mining of certain mineral ores but never does any processing activity on ore to convert it to concentrate. Adding further, he would submit that when all the activities carried on in the petitioner''s mine are entirely exempted from the levy of central excise vide Notification No. 63/95 dated 16.03.1995, it is incumbent on the part of the 1st respondent to decide first whether the petitioner is entitled to the said exemption, because once it is found that the petitioner is entitled to exemption under Notification No. 63/95 dated 16.03.1995, then the respondents will ceaze to have jurisdiction and the show cause notice and consequent enquiry cannot exist, hence, a request has been made raising a preliminary issue to decide whether the petitioner comes within the purview of Mines Act and hence entitled to exemption under Notification No. 63/95. This jurisdictional issue has already been decided by the Apex Court in
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the petitioner company engaging in mining of beach sand has a number of mining leases granted by the Government of Tamil Nadu for mining the beach sand containing Ilemenite, Garnet, Rutile and Leucoxene. Since all the mining leases are within the CRZ notification, part of the mining activities such as, extraction on the lease granted minerals from other associated minerals which are also mining part of operation are taken place outside the CRZ, however, in these plants the sea sand is washed for removal of dirt through spirals. The clean beach sand containing silica sand, shells and other several associated minerals is then taken for collecting Ilmenite, Garnet, Rutile, Zircon ores from other associated minerals and Silica sand, while so, the respondent first visited the Keeraikranthattu facility and head office on 26.03.2013 and during the site visit, as requested by them, the petitioner furnished the required production details vide covering letter dated 26.03.2013. At this stage, a complaint of bribery was made against one Raja Climax, an officer of the Central Excise Department vide CSR. No. 439/2013. Since the said Raja Climax is a very influential person and also one of the office bearers of the Central Excise Officers Association, using his clout, he was able to force his colleague to turn against the petitioner by initiating bogus proceedings with a view to coercing the petitioner to withdraw his case against him, since the petitioner made a complaint against the said Raja Climax''s conduct vide letter dated 07.03.2014. In support of the petitioner''s complaint one Mr. M. Raja had given evidence against the aforementioned Raja Climax in a criminal proceedings for which the said Raja was threatened by the respondents. On noticing the same, the petitioner wrote another complaint to the higher authorities and subsequently filed Crl.O.P(MD) No. 22538 of 2013 against the said Raja Climax for a direction seeking expeditious action against the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent in order to harass the petitioner initiated the present proceedings, therefore, the petitioner has impleaded the 2nd respondent in his personal capacity.
9. He further submitted that the petitioner is having 8 plants located at different places where waste sand is separated from the mineral-rich beach sand and these plants are therefore ''mines'' as defined in Section 2(1)(j) of the Mines Act, 1952. This apart, 4 of the plants are located within the lease area itself while others are located within the environs of the lease area, hence, the notification No. 4/2006 exempts all processes with respect to ores from the levy of central excise.
10. Continuing his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that admitted position of the petitioner''s plants as mines could be very well seen in the stand taken by the department in order in Original No. TVM-Ex. Cus-000-COM-10-13-14 dated 30.12.2013 making it clear that all the process carried out at such plants are fully exempted from the levy of central excise by virtue of notification No. 63/95 dated 16.03.1995. Besides, all these units have the legal status of mine and received the judicial recognition in the judgment and decree of the Principal Subordinate Court at Tirunelveli in O.S. No. 144 of 2010 vide judgment dated 27.06.2012 as well as in the judgment of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tirunelveli, in C.C. No. 114 of 2007 and also in the judgment of the ESI Court at Tirunelveli in ESIOP. No. 8/2012. In view of various decrees and judgments mentioned above, they are all granted exemption under Notification No. 63/95 dated 16.03.1995 for the reason that all these plants are located in a mine and some plants are located within the environs of the lease area and therefore the petitioner''s mining company is fully exempted from the levy of central excise as per Notification No. 63/95 dated 16.03.1995. When these facts were brought to the notice of this Court, this Court by order dated 08.07.2015 directed the respondents to furnish all the documents and also to decide the preliminary issue whether the plants of the petitioner are exempted from the abovesaid notification so as to go into the jurisdictional issue, surprisingly the respondent in spite of specific directions, have not till date come forward to decide the preliminary issue, therefore, a further direction to be given to comply with the earlier direction, accordingly, he prayed for allowing the writ petition.
11. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents 1 and 2. Mr. B. Vijay Karthikeyan, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the present writ petition is not maintainable as the same is barred by the principles of constructive res judicata. He has further contended that originally the petitioner was issued with a show cause notice dated 26.12.2014 to show cause to the Commissioner of Central Excise why the products viz., Ilemenite, Zircon, Rutile, Sillimanite, leucoxene manufactured out of sea sand (ore) and cleared the same during the period from 01.03.2011 to 31.03.2014 should not be classified as concentrates of Ilemenite, Zircon, Rutile, Sillimanite, leucoxene under chapter sub heading 26140020, 26151000, 26060090 and 26140090 of CETA respectively, within 30 days from the date of receipt of the notice to give their explanation. The petitioner challenging the said show cause notice filed W.P(MD) No. 3316 of 2015 to quash the same on the ground that the respondents have pre-determined the issue. This Court refusing to accept the plea by order dated 10.03.2015 dismissed the writ petition and directed the petitioner to give their explanation to the show cause notice before the respondent on receipt of the relevant documents which are relied on in the show cause notice with a further direction to the respondent to furnish the petitioner all the documents relied on in the show cause notice.
12. Denying the allegation that Raja Climax is having close relationship with the 2nd respondent/Commissioner of Central Excise Tirunelveli, it is further submitted that the said Raja Climax being Superintendent the 2nd respondent, normally, there is a relationship between them as superior and the subordinate only, therefore, the allegation of the petitioner attributing mala fide against the respondent that the show cause notice is issued wilfully without any basis, he pleaded, is far from acceptance and it is only for the purpose of protracting the issue, the petitioner is imputing malice against the respondent.
13. Coming to the main issue, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that so far as the main issue in the writ petition is concerned namely, serving of the relied upon documents, the department is always ready to provide the same, however, so far as the averments and the allegations in the affidavit of the petitioner are concerned, they are made without any basis.
14. Referring to the petitioner''s representation dated 14.01.2015, seeking to furnish copy of Notification No. 4/2006 dated 01.03.2006, he would submit that the petitioner was informed to collect the same from the cbec website, however, with regard to the representation dated 15.01.2015 requesting four documents, learned counsel would submit that the department by their proceedings dated 04.02.2015 has served the petitioner a letter dated 21.01.2014 written by the Assistant Commissioner(Anti Evasion) Head Office, Tirunelveli, to the Customs House, Tuticorin and also reply bearing C. No. VIII/03/23/2013-Exp dated 30.01.2014 with annexures. With regard to other documents, the Assistant Commissioner has passed an order dated 27.04.2015 stating that the petitioner can collect all the relied upon documents which are mentioned in paragraph 11 of the show cause notice from the office on any working day between 10.00 hours to 17.00 hours, however, the petitioner without visiting the office for the purpose of collecting the relied upon documents, has been making vague allegation as if the department is not giving the documents to submit the reply.
15. Referring to the representations of the petitioner dated 01.04.2015 and 05.05.2015, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the petitioner has enlarged his request by asking unnecessary document like Laboratory Analysis Reports and Test Certificates showing that the materials taken from them are analysed and found to be ''ore'' or ''concentrate''. When the petitioners have not even asked for documents in the previous representation, after the direction issued by this Court on 10.03.2015 to furnish the relevant documents which are relied upon in the show cause notice, the petitioner once again enlarging the demand request has asked for more documents, this is nothing but dilatory tactics to stall the adjudication proceedings initiated in the show cause notice dated 26.12.2014.
16. Continuing his arguments, he would submit that when the respondents have not mentioned anywhere in the show cause notice about the Laboratory Analysis Reports and Test Certificates, supply of the same are unwarranted. For the aforesaid reasons, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.
17. During the hearing of W.P(MD) No. 3316 of 2015, the department has taken a stand that they will make the document requested by the petitioner for ready and hand over the same. In view of that, this Court while dismissing the writ petition on the ground that no writ petition will lie against the show cause notice, directed the respondent to furnish all the relevant documents which are relied on in the show cause notice. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner has given a representation on 20.07.2015 giving the details of the documents requested and also making out a prayer for deciding the preliminary issue. On receipt of the same, the respondent issued another letter dated 20.07.2015 which is given as under:--
"Today on 20.07.2015 we are ready to serve upon documents mentioned in the SCN as directed by the Hon''ble Madurai Bench of Madras High Court vide Order dated 08.07.2015 made in W.P(MD) No. 8871 of 2015. However, your authorized representative Shri. A.H. Andeswaran has told that he would collect the above said documents only in the presence of their Counsel. And since the Counsel is not available, he could come and collect the above said documents on a convenient date.
Therefore, you are requested to come and collect the above said documents as the same is readily available in this office."
18. Therefore, in the light of the above, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was issued with a show cause notice dated 26.12.2014 by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Tirunelveli, to show cause as to why the products viz., Ilemenite, Zircon, Rutile, Sillimanite, leucoxene manufactured out of sea sand (ore) and cleared the same during the period from 01.03.2011 to 31.03.2014 should not be classified as concentrates of Ilemenite, Zircon, Rutile, Sillimanite, leucoxene under chapter sub heading 26140020, 26151000, 26060090 and 26140090 of CETA respectively, within 30 days from the date of receipt of the same. Challenging the said show cause notice, the petitioner filed W.P(MD) No. 3316 of 2015 on the ground that the respondent has pre-determined the issue without even deciding whether the petitioner''s plants are mines and thereupon to exempt from the levy of central excise vide Notification No. 63/95 dated 16.03.1995, however this Court by its order dated 10.03.2015 in W.P. No. 3316/15 holding that the writ petition challenging the show cause notice is not maintainable, dismissed the same and also directed the respondents to furnish all the relevant documents which are relied on in the show cause notice. The relevant portion is given as under:--
"7. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that they have sought for certain documents from the respondent for issuing proper reply to the show cause notice and the said request is yet to be considered by the respondent. If any such request is made, it is needless to say that the respondent shall consider the same and furnish the relevant documents, which are relied on in the show cause notice.''''
19. In the light of the order, the petitioner has given a representation dated 01.04.2015 to the respondents giving the details of the documents to be furnished as per the order passed on 10.03.2015 and sent a reminder on 05.05.2015, however all of a sudden, to their surprise, the impugned letter dated 12.05.2015 was issued informing the petitioner that it is not reasonable to call for the documents which are not cited as relied upon documents in the show cause notice, on that basis, the petitioner was asked to submit his explanation, hence, the petitioner came to this court challenging the impugned communication dated 12.05.2015 raising two issues that in spite of a specific direction given by this court on 10.03.2015 in W.P(MD) No. 3316 of 2015 to furnish all the relevant documents which are relied on in the show cause notice, the respondent failed to furnish the same, as a result, the petitioner is neither able to give reply nor able to raise the basic and preliminary issue whether the Central Excise Department has jurisdiction to assess and levy central excise from the petitioner in view of notification No. 63/95 granting full exemption to the petitioner''s mine from the application of the Act.
20. In regard to the question of res judicata, it may be mentioned that when the petitioner''s earlier W.P(MD) No. 3316 of 2015 challenging the show cause notice was dismissed with a direction to the respondent to furnish all the relied upon documents, subsequently, although part of the documents were furnished to the petitioner, some other documents were not furnished, therefore, the subsequent communication has been impugned rightly, hence, the contention of the respondents that the principles of res judicata will apply to this writ petition is wholly unfounded. Therefore, this court accepting the case of the petitioner, keeping the present writ petition pending has passed the interim order on 08.07.2015 which is given as under:--
"The learned counsel for the petitioner by relying upon the following decisions submits that if the authority looks into the decisions, certainly they would come to the conclusion that the petitioner has got a good case on merits and no liability can be foisted on him. The decisions relied by the petitioner are as follows:--
1.
2.
3. The Kerala Minerals and Metals Ltd., v. The Commissioner of Central Excise [ , 2007 9120) ECC 273] .
4. TVM-EXCUS-OOO-COM-10-13-14 Indian Rare Earth Ltd.
2. The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that unless and until the preliminary issue as well as the merits of the matter are decided, there will not be any finality. He further submitted that the respondents are willing to furnish the documents required by the petitioner
3. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the documents asked for by him with regard to issue-wise may be furnished to him in a separate cover so that he will go through the same and give a detailed reply within a period of 30 days as contemplated under the Act.
4. Taking note of the submissions of both sides, this Court directs the petitioner to appear before the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Tirunelveli, who shall furnish the copies of the documents on issue-wise in a separate cover. In case the documents relied upon by the respondent is pointed out by the petitioner, the same may also be considered by the respondent and shall be furnished to the petitioner. The petitioner shall appear before the authority on 20.07.2015 and the authority concerned shall hand over the documents as stated supra. It is also open to the authority concerned to consider the representations of the petitioner, if there are no legal impediments.
5. Post the case on 03.08.2015 for further hearing."
21. Therefore, the interim order passed by this Court dated 08.07.2015 is bound to be complied with for the following reasons:--
"A careful perusal of paragraph 2 of the interim order dated 08.07.2015 makes it clear that unless and until the preliminary issue as well as the merits of the matter are decided, there will not be any finality. In compliance with this directions, the respondents also in their counter affidavit have taken a stand that they are willing to furnish the documents required by the petitioner."
22. In this regard, it is relevant to extract the following portion from paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent which is given as under:--
"The main issue in this writ petition is about serving of the relied upon documents for which the department is always ready to provide the same."
No enquiry can be fair and complete unless the person facing enquiry is furnished with all the requisite documents.
23. It is a well settled legal position that right to fair hearing is a guaranteed right. Every person before an authority who is exercising the adjudicating powers has a right to know the evidence to be used against him. This principle is firmly established and recognised by the Apex Court in Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd., v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, West Bengal reported in 1995 1 SCR 941, wherein it has been held that the law is well settled that if prejudicial allegations are to be made against a person, he must be given particulars of that before hearing, so that he can prepare his defence. Therefore, I am of the view that the respondent should comply with the order dated 08.07.2015, hence, the respondents are directed to furnish all the documents sought for in the letter dated 05.05.2015.
24. Regarding the jurisdiction of the respondent is concerned, the same is settled in Australian Foods Ltd., v. Central Excise, Chennai-II reported in 2010 SCC 2397 Mad, holding that normally if a jurisdiction of the authority is questioned, such issue taking it as a preliminary issue, has to be decided in the first instance. It is relevant to extract paragraphs 18 to 20 of the judgment which are given as under:--
"18. It is the settled legal position that in any proceeding if a question of jurisdiction of the authority deciding the issue is raised, prior to dealing with other issues involved, the question of jurisdiction must be dealt with as a preliminary issue, by the authorities. But, in the case on hand, the Settlement Commission, which has been established as a quasi-judicial body under the Statute, has proceeded to deal with an aspect which is completely out of its purview and jurisdiction.
19. At this juncture, we feel it apt to quote the rulings of the Honourable Supreme Court on the aspect of jurisdiction. In
"74. A ''jurisdictional fact'' is a fact which must exist before a court, tribunal or an authority assumes jurisdiction over a particular matter. A jurisdictional fact is one on existence or non-existence of which depends jurisdiction of a court, a tribunal or an authority. It is the fact upon which an administrative agency''s power to act depends. If the jurisdictional fact does not exist, the court, authority or officer cannot act. If a court or authority wrongly assumes the existence of such fact, the order can be questioned by a writ of certiorari. The underlying principles is that by erroneously assuming existence of such jurisdictional fact, no authority can confer upon itself jurisdiction which it otherwise does not possess."
It was further observed:
"76. The existence of jurisdictional fact is thus sine qua non or condition precedent for the exercise of power by a court of limited jurisdiction."
"..... A wrong decision on ''fact in issue'' or on ''adjudicatory fact'' would not make the decision of the authority without jurisdiction or vulnerable provided essential or fundamental fact as to existence of jurisdiction is present."
20. This principle was reiterated in
25. Similarly, the Apex Court also in
"11. There is also no doubt that the proceedings before the Industrial Tribunal are in the nature of quasi-judicial proceedings and in respect of them a writ of certiorari can issue in a proper case. If the Industrial Tribunal proceeds to assume jurisdiction over a non-industrial dispute that can be successfully challenged before the High Court by a petition for appropriate writ, and the power of the High Court to issue an appropriate writ in that behalf cannot be questioned.
12. It is also true that even if the dispute is tried by the Industrial Tribunal, at the very commencement the Industrial Tribunal will have to examine as a preliminary issue the question as to whether the dispute referred to it is an industrial dispute or not, and the decision of this question would inevitably depend upon the view which the Industrial Tribunal may take as to whether the action taken by the appellant is a closure or a lockout. The finding which the Industrial Tribunal may record on this preliminary issue will decide whether it has jurisdiction to deal with the merits of the dispute or not. If the finding is that the action of the appellant amounts to a closure, there would be an end to the proceedings before the Tribunal so far as the main dispute is concerned. If on the other hand, the finding is that the action of the appellant amounts to a lockout which has been disguised as a closure, then the Tribunal will be entitled to deal with the reference. The finding which the Tribunal may make on this preliminary issue is a finding on a jurisdictional fact and it is only when the jurisdictional fact is found against the appellant that the Industrial Tribunal would have jurisdiction to deal with the merits of the dispute."
26. The issue viz., whether the petitioner firm is brought under the purview of the Mines Act, has already been adjudicated by competent courts and became final:--
"Applying the above ratio in the present case, it has become necessary to decide the preliminary issue for the simple reason that all the units of the petitioner have already become subject matter of judicial decision holding that they are coming within the definition of ''mine'' in the judgment of the Principal Subordinate Court at Tirunelveli in O.S. No. 144 of 2010 dated 27.06.2012 and again in the judgment of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tirunelveli, in C.C. No. 114 of 2007 and also in the judgment of the ESI Court at Tirunelveli in ESIOP. No. 8/2012 that the petitioner comes under the purview of the Mines Act and their activities are mining activity, hence, it is necessary for the respondents to decide the preliminary issue whether the petitioner is entitled to exemption under Notification Nos. 63/95 dated 16.03.1995 and 4/2006 dated 01.03.2006 for the reason that para 17(11) of the notification states that ''mine'' has meaning given in Section 2(i)(j) of the Mines Act, 1952 and as per Section 2(i)(j) the word ''mine'' includes not only the mine area, but also the place where sand is processed, the place where the workshops are located and any adjacent premises."
27. Similarly, another notification No. 4/06 dated 01.03.2006 also exempts all "ores" from the levy of central excise. In this context, it is pertinent to refer to various orders and judgments of both civil and criminal courts, holding that all the units of the petitioner firm are coming within the definition of ''mine'', they are;
"1) Judgment passed by the learned Principal Sub Court at Tirunelveli in O.S. No. 144/2010 dated 27.06.2012.
2) Judgment passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Tirunelveli in C.C. No. 114/2007 dated 11.12.2009.
3) Judgment passed by the learned ESI Court at Tirunelveli in ESI.OP. No. 8/2012 dated 04.01.2013, wherein, it is held thus:--
"It is the specific contention of the petitioner that they are doing mines activities and quarrying garnet. The respondent also admitted the above activities but he said the quarry is in somewhere a remote place and in the premises they are manufacturing/processing garnet. To prove they are doing mines activities, the petitioner produced two judgments Ex. P8 and Ex. P10. They were related to one criminal case and another civil case in which the petitioner was found doing mines activities and they are not industries.
.... In view of the above, even if the petitioner doing any activities related to the mines in the premises then their activities will come only under the Mines Act and so the petitioner concern is declared as a Mines as defined in the Mines Act."
All the above mentioned competent civil and criminal courts have consistently held that all the units of the petitioner firm are coming under the definition ''mine''. Even though in an identical facts and circumstances, the Commissioner of Central Excise at Trivandrum in its order in Original No. TVM-Ex. Cus-000-COM-10-13-14 dated 30.12.2013 has held in the case of
28. In the light of the above discussion and decisions, the impugned order dated 12.05.2015 informing the petitioner that it is not reasonable to call for the documents which are not cited as relied upon documents in the show cause notice dated 26.12.2014, is partly set aside and a direction is issued to the 1st respondent/Commissioner Central Excise, Tirunelveli, to furnish the documents sought for by the petitioner in their letter dated 05.05.2015 and thereafter consider the representation of the petitioner with regard to the preliminary issue to decide whether the Central Excise Department has any jurisdiction to assess and levy central excise from the petitioner in view of section 5A(1) of the Central Excise Act giving exemption to certain products from the application of the Central Excise Act and thereafter the petitioner shall submit his explanation to the charge memo issued in No. 29/COMMR/CE/2014 dated 26.12.2014 and thereupon the respondents shall decide the matter on merits and pass orders in accordance with law expeditiously.
29. Hence, the writ petition is partly allowed with the above directions. No costs. Consequently, M.P.(MD) No. 1 of 2015 is closed.
