Important Point: T
he action of reviving the show cause notice or proceedings on the basis of stale show cause notice would not be permissible in view of catena of decisions mentioned in the judgment and the judgment itself, which has been placed on record.

S.R.BRAHMBHATT, J.

1. Rule. Mr. Ankit Shah, learned advocate, waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent no.2. Shri Devang Vyas, learned A.S.G. waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent no.1. By consent, rule is fixed forthwith.

2. The petitioners, noticees, mentioned in the notice dated 27.12.1995, at page no.23, have approached this Court by way of this petition with following prayers:

(A) That Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a Writ of Prohibition or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, completely and permanently prohibiting the Respondents, their servants and agents from taking any action against the Petitioners in pursuance of Show Cause Notice No.V(Ch.84)15-6/OA/95 dated 27.12.1995 (Annexure-”C”);

(B) That Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, quashing and setting aside Show Cause Notice No.V(Ch.84)15-6/OA/95 27.12.1995 (Annexure-”C”);

(C) Pending hearing and final disposal of the present petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to restrain the Respondents, their servants and agents from taking any action including adjudication of Show Cause Notice No.V(Ch.84)15-6/OA/95 27.12.1995 (Annexure-”C”) thereby staying the proceedings of this show cause notice dated 27.12.1995;

(D) An ex-parte ad-interim relief in terms of para 17(C) above may kindly be granted.

(E) Any other further relief that may be deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also please be granted.

3. Facts in brief, as could be gathered from the petition, deserves to be set out as under:

3.1 The petitioner, who are Company and Firms, were engaged in business of manufacturing textile machinery like twisting machines, winding machines, sizing machines etc. Various accessories like motor, starter, belt spindles, bobbins etc. which were to be used with the above referred types of textile machines, were purchased and procured by the petitioners from the open market, and they were supplied to the customers who purchased machines from the petitioners.

3.2 M/s. Alidhara Textile Engineers Ltd., a public limited company was also engaged in marketing of textile machines manufactured by the petitioners. The Central Excise officers conducted enquiry and investigation against the petitioners and also M/s. Alidhara and ultimately, a Show Cause Notice F.No.V(Ch.84)15-12/OA/94 dated 07.04.1994 was issued by the Collector of Central Excise, Surat who demanded Central Excise duty of Rs.5,76,09,599/- from M/s. Alidhara Textile Engineers Ltd., Udhna, for various textile machines marketed by them during 1.4.1989 to 30.9.1992. In this show cause notice, penalties were proposed to be imposed on various other parties, some of whom are petitioners in the present case.

3.3 After conduction adjudication of the above referred show cause notice dated 7.4.1904, the Collector of Central Excise, Surat, passed an order No.34/MP/95 dated 24.05.1995 thereby demanding Central Excise duty from the parties who were proposed to be penalized in the show cause notice, whereas the duty demand raised against M/s. Alidhara Textile Engineers Ltd. was dropped while passing this adjudication order on the basis that the said company was not a manufacturer. The demand of Rs.5,76,09,588/- that was raised in the show cause notice against M/s. Aloidhara was bifurcated and demanded from 14 parties including the petitioners herein on the ground that they were the manufacturers of textile machinery and hence liable to pay excise duty on the value of accessories which were bought out and supplied with the textile machines.

3.4 The parties aggrieved by the above referred order of the Collector filed appeals before the Appellate Tribunal, Bombay, and theses appeals being E/698/V-95-Bom to E/721/V-95-Bom came to be allowed by the Appellate Tribunal vide order No.2306- 30/97/WZB dated 6.5.1997.

3.5 The Revenue was also aggrieved by the above referred adjudication order dated