Judgment :- A. R. LAKSHMANAN, J. By consent of both parties the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. K. S. Parthasarathi and also learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel. 2. The petitioner filed the above writ petition for a writ of prohibition prohibiting the second respondent from proceeding further with the enquiry pursuant to his letter dated 17.4.1995 in OC No. 426/95 issued to the petitioner-company in and by which the second respondent has called upon the petitioner-company to furnish details regarding its production from 16.3.1995 to 5.4.1995. According to the petitioner, the communication dated 16.3.1995 was written pursuant to the notification No. 47/95-CE dated 16.3.1995. The petitioner sent a reply on 17.3.1995 requesting time for submission of the application form as in view of the fact that an exemption notification was awaited on the representation made by Hosiery Manufacturers' Association. The letter dated 17.3.1995 was followed by a letter dated 11.4.1995 and along with the said letter the petitioner-company had enclosed the notification No. 80/95-CE dated 6.4.1995 which has exempted excise duty on cotton hosiery items. In spite of the letter dated 11.4.1995 the second respondent again requested the petitioner-company to furnish details to his office to enable him to make necessary demands. In his letter dated 17.4.1995 the second respondent has stated that the amendment to notification No. 47/95-CE dated 16.3.1995 will not apply to the period commencing from 16.3.1995 to 15.4.1995 and for this period the petitioner-company had to furnish the details and also pay necessary Central Excise duty. On 18.4.1995 the petitioner gave a letter to the second respondent informing him that notification No. 80/95-CE dated 6.4.1995 has indicated that there was an exemption from 16.3.1995 and, therefore, the petitioner-company was not liable to pay any excise duty. Once again the second respondent sent a letter on 20.4.1995 requesting the petitioner to furnish particulars failing which the second respondent threatened that summons would be issued as per Section 14 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Once again the second respondent sent a letter on 20.4.1995 requesting the petitioner to furnish particulars failing which the second respondent threatened that summons would be issued as per Section 14 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. After receipt of the said letter the petitioner-company sent a letter to the first respondent informing him about the fact that knitted fabrics are exempted from Central Excise levy as per Notification No. 80/95 and, therefore, the petitioner-company was not liable to pay any Central excise duty and requested the 1st respondent to inform the second respondent about the said facts. On 10.5.1995 the second respondent had issued summons calling for particulars from the period commencing from 16.3.1995 to 5.4.1995. The Factory Manager was called upon to appear in person before the second respondent on 17.5.1995. On receiving the summons the petitioner-company gave an objection statement clearly setting out in detail that the second respondent has no jurisdiction to call upon the petitioner-company to produce the accounts. However, without prejudice the petitioner-company also produced true extracts of accounts for the period from 16.3.1995 to 5.4.1995. The second respondent after receipt of the particulars, wanted some more particulars to be given and those particulars also were given to the second respondent without prejudice to the contention that the second respondent had no jurisdiction to take proceedings against the petitioner-company. 3. It is true that the petitioner-company had repeatedly pointed out to the 2nd respondent that he has no jurisdiction to initiate the proceedings. According to the petitioner, the second respondent wants to proceed and exercise jurisdiction where he has none to levy central excise duty on the petitioner-company and on the representation made by the petitioner-company to the 2nd respondent he has given a further period of one month from 28.7.1995 to produce particulars. Thus aggrieved by the unilateral action of the 2nd respondent the petitioner-company has filed the above writ petition in this Court. 4. Mr. Thus aggrieved by the unilateral action of the 2nd respondent the petitioner-company has filed the above writ petition in this Court. 4. Mr. Parthasarathy, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterates that the second respondent has absolutely no jurisdiction to call upon the petitioner-company to produce all the documents and records with reference to processed knitted fabrics or items exempted as per the notification No. 80/95 dated 6.4.1995, by which knitted fabrics of cotton have been taken outside the purview of the Central Excise Act, and, therefore, they are not liable to be charged with excise duty for any period of time. I am of the view that the writ petition is premature. The petitioner was called upon to produce the accounts for the period commencing from 16.3.1995 to 5.4.1995. It is true that the petitioner has raised a contention that the second respondent has no jurisdiction to call upon the petitioner-company to produce all the documents and records with reference to the processed knitted fabrics or items which had been exempted as per notification No. 80/95 dated 6.4.1995. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner-company has also produced true extracts of the accounts for the period from 16.3.1995 to 5.4.1995 and also furnished further particulars as called for by the second respondent. When the matter is seized by the Authority who is competent to deal with the same, this Court cannot interfere with such enquiry and issue writ of prohibition as prayed for by the petitioner. It is well open to the petitioner to raise all contentions both factual and legal before the Authorities concerned and this is a matter which has to be decided on merits and in accordance with law. Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed as premature. At the time of hearing it was brought to the notice of this Court that the show cause notice issued by the second respondent herein dated 5.9.1995 requiring the petitioner-company to show cause to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Thanjavur as to why an amount of Rs. 53, 532/- should not be demanded from them under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 11A of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. The petitioner was also called upon to show cause as to why penal action should not be taken on them under Rules 9(2), 52-A and 173-Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944. 53, 532/- should not be demanded from them under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 11A of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. The petitioner was also called upon to show cause as to why penal action should not be taken on them under Rules 9(2), 52-A and 173-Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944. The petitioner was also directed to produce all the evidences upon which they intended to rely in support of their defence. The petitioner was also requested to indicate in the written explanation whether they wish to be heard in person before the case is adjudicated. Six weeks time is given to the petitioner-company to submit an explanation by way of reply to the above show cause notice and the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Thanjavur is directed to give a fair hearing to the petitioner and pass orders in accordance with law. The petitioner will be entitled to file their additional explanation by way of further reply in addition to the explanation already submitted and the records produced. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. W.M.P. No. 18447 of 1995 is dismissed.