DEBANGSU BASAK, J.

1. The petitioners have assailed a show-cause cum demand notice dated October 18, 2016 issued by the Principal Commissioner of Service Tax-I Commissionerate, Kolkata.

2. Additional Advocate General appearing for the petitioners has submitted that, the impugned show-cause notice alleges that, the petitioner had availed of CENVAT credit inappropriately. He has referred to Rule 6 (3B) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and has submitted that, the petitioners never availed CENVAT credit which was not due to the petitioners. The petitioners had treated the accounts in a particular way. The manner in which the petitioner treated the accounts was known to the authorities. He has referred to pleadings in paragraph 19 to 36 of the writ petition and has submitted that, the manner in which the CENVAT credit was being claimed by the petitioners, was made known to the authorities in diverse proceedings. At no stage, did the authorities question the treatment of the accounts in such manner. He has submitted that, the period for which, the show-cause notice has been issued was covered by the proceedings initiated in respect thereof by the department, independent of the sh