1. The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition challenging the show cause notice issued under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.

2. I have heard Mr. Joseph Kodianthara, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Rajnish Pathiyil, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel for the Central Excise Department and Mr.R.Senthilkumar, learned counsel for the 5th Respondent.

3. The petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of Poly Iso Butylene. The main input for the product manufactured by the petitioner, is called Poly Butylene Feed Stock (PBFS), which is manufactured and supplied to the petitioner by the 5th Respondent herein.

4. Both according to the petitioner and according to the Respondents 1 to 4, the 5th Respondent sends PBFS through pipeline to the factory of the petitioner. The petitioner extracts Poly Iso Butylene from the input sent by the 5th Respondent and the petitioner sends back the remnants, to the 5th Respondent. The Respondents 1 to 4 themselves, have worked out on the basis of the meter readings and estimate of the process engineering that what is extracted by the petitioner accounts for 17% and what is sent back is 83% of the Feed Stock.

5. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 5A of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, the Central Government exempted Petroleum Gases and other Gaseous Hydrocarbons falling under Chapter Heading No.27.11 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, intended for use in the manufacture of Poly Iso Butylene, from so much of the Excise Duty, as is in excess of the Duty leviable on the quantity of the gas consumed in the manufacture of Poly Iso Butylene. This exemption was granted first by Notification No.157/89-C.E. dated 17.07.1989.

6. A similar exemption Notification was issued on 01.03.2006 in respect of various items. Under Serial No.29 of the table under the said Notification, Chapter Heading 27.11 with respect to the same product was covered.

7. Subsequently, Notification No.12/2012 dated 17.03.2012 was issued granting exemption in respect of more than about 300 items. Serial No.83 of the said Notification also covered the very same item manufactured by the petitioner. Therefore, for the past about 20 years ever since the first exemption Notification was issued in 1989, the 5th Respondent has been enjoying the benefit of the exemption, in respect of whatever is returned to the 5th Respondent.

8. But suddenly the second Respondent issued a notice bearing No.20/2013 dated 07.11.2013, demanding Duty in respect of the Petroleum gas returned to the 5th Respondent during the period from October 2008 to June 2013. Aggrieved by the said notice, the petitioner has come up with the above writ petition.

9. The first and foremost objection taken by the Respondents 1 to 4, to the writ petition is that what is challenged is only a show cause notice and that therefore the petitioner can always give a reply and submit his objections. Even if an order is passed against the petitioner, the petitioner can work out his remedies in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law.

10. Without prejudice to the contention regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, it is claimed by the Respondents 1 to 4 that the petitioner receives PBFS from the 5th Respondent and various other materials from other vendors and carries on a manufacturing process that leads to a finished product. According to the Respondents, the manufacturing process leads to the production of Poly Iso Butylene, like polymers and certain goods which are collected and stored in the LPG Bullets, that are returned to the 5th Respondent without payment of Duty. What is extracted by the petitioner is of course cleared upon payment of Excise Duty. Therefore, the Respondents 1 to 4 claim that as per Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, the manufacturer who manufactures both Dutiable and exempted products, is required to maintain separate accounts for the receipt, consumpti