ORDER By the Court.The present Writ Pe­tition has been filed, inter-alia, praying for quashing the Order dated 27-11-2012 ( An­nexure 8 to the Writ Petition) and the Order dated 27-12-2012 ( Annexure 10 to the Writ Petition). 2. It appears that the petitioner had obtained Central Excise Licence/Regis­tration from, the Central Excise Depart­ment at Varanasi, and it was engaged in the business of manufacture of Cigarettes falling under Chapter/Sub-Heading ,2403.11 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 at Varanasi as a franchisee of M/s. G.T.C. Industries Limited, Bombay. 3. A Show-Cause Notice dated 30-9-1995 ( Annexure 1 to the Writ Petition) was issued to the petitioner ( and others) by the Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi. The said Notice required the peti­tioner ( and others) to Show-Cause as to why various actions mentioned in the said Notice be not taken against the petitioner ( and others). 4. The petitioner filed a Writ Petition before this Court being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 143 of 2000. By the Order dated 11-2-2000, this Court disposed of the Writ Petition, inter-alia, directing that photostat copies of all the relevant docu­ments, which were to be relied upon against the petitioner must be supplied to the petitioner before proceeding further in the matter. 5. It is not disputed that photostat cop­ies of the relevant documents relied upon against the petitioner have since been supplied to the petitioner. 6. It further appears that personal hearing in the matter has been going on before the respondent No. 3. 7. A perusal of the proceedings dated 14-12-2011 shows that the petitioner made prayer for cross-examination of vari­ous persons ( including the co-noticees), whereupon the petitioner was asked to submit fresh list ( excluding the co-noticees), keeping in view the points men­tioned in the said Order dated 14-12-2011. 8. A perusal of the proceedings held on 11-1-2012 shows that summons were directed to be issued to the witnesses excluding the co-noticees. 9. On 13-8-2012, the petitioner made an application before the respondent No. 3, copy whereof has been filed as Annex­ure 5 to the Writ Petition. In the said application, the petitioner made prayer for sending summons to the co-noticees also. 10. On 22-8-2012, the respondent No. 3 passed an order reiterating that under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, summons could not be issued to compel the co-noticees to appear for cross-examination. In the said application, the petitioner made prayer for sending summons to the co-noticees also. 10. On 22-8-2012, the respondent No. 3 passed an order reiterating that under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, summons could not be issued to compel the co-noticees to appear for cross-examination. However, it was open to the co-noticees to voluntarily appear for cross-examination without issuing summons under Section 14 of the said Act. The respondent No. 3 further directed the petitioner to file their reply, and it was observed that "if any person appears for cross-examination, they may file Addi­tional Reply." 11. On 27-11-2012, the-respondent No. 3 passed an order observing that the co-noticees had not turned-up for cross-examination and could not be compelled to come for cross-examination. The re­spondent No. 3 further directed the peti­tioner to file defence reply including the submissions as to why the statements tendered by various witnesses should not be considered in terms of Section 9-D of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It has fur­ther directed that final reply be filed by the petitioner on or before 20-12-2012. 12. The petitioner again submitted an Application dated 19-12-2012 ( Annexure 9 to the Writ Petition) reiterating that cross-examination of various Officers/Wit­nesses was necessary so that an effec­tive final reply on behalf of the petitioner could be filed. 13. The respondent No. 3 has there­after, passed the Order dated 27-12-2012 ( Annexure 10 to the Writ Petition) wherein the respondent No. 3 has referred to the proceedings of personal hearing held on 20-12-2012. It has been noticed in the Or­der dated 27-12-2012 that in personal hearing held on 20-12-2012, it was em­phasized that the reply of the petitioner was over-due, and the petitioner should file the same on or before 27-12-2012. How­ever, on 27-12-2012, fifteen days' time was sought on behalf of the petitioner for filing the reply. 14. It has been observed in the Order dated 27-12-2012 that repeated request for time to file reply was only a delaying tactics. It has further been observed that sufficient opportunity had been given for filing the reply on merit, however, in case the petitioner so desired, it could file re­ply by 28-12-2012. 15. After the said Order dated 27-12-2012, it appears that the petitioner has submitted a letter dated 31-12-2012, in-ter-alia-, stating that Part 'A' of the reply is being filed by the petitioner. 16. 15. After the said Order dated 27-12-2012, it appears that the petitioner has submitted a letter dated 31-12-2012, in-ter-alia-, stating that Part 'A' of the reply is being filed by the petitioner. 16. The petitioner has, thereupon, filed the present Writ Petition seeking the re­liefs as mentioned above. 17. We have heard Sri K.N. Tripathi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri K.K. Arora, learned Counsel for the peti­tioner and Sri S.P. Kesarwani, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. 18. It is submitted by Sri K. N. Tripathi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that cross-examination of the witnesses whose statements were re­corded by the authority was necessary prior to tine submission of reply by the petitioner as the cross-examination would enable the petitioner to properly defend its case. 19. Sri K.N. Tripathi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Lakshman Exports Limited v. Col­lector of Central Excise, 2002 ( 143) E.LT. 21 ( S.C.). 20. Sri S.P. Kesarwani, learned Se­nior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 submits that prior to the submission of reply by the petitioner, there was no occasion for per­mitting the petitioner to cross -examine the witnesses whose statements had been recorded by the authority. It is sub­mitted that only after the petitioner sub­mits its reply that the adjudication case will start and the question of cross-ex­amination would arise. Sri Vinod Kant Srivastava places reliance on the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut-l v. Parmarth Iron Pvt. Ltd., 2010 ( 260) E.LT. 514 ( Alld.). 21. We have considered the submis­sions made by the learned Counsel for the parties. 22. From the above narration of facts, it is evident that the Show-Cause Notice was given to the petitioner in the year 1995. The petitioner has not as yet sub­mitted its final reply to the Show-Cause Notice. 23. From a perusal of the proceed­ings of various dates before the respon­dent No. 3, it is evident that the respon­dent No. 3 has been requiring the peti­tioner to submit its final reply to the Show-Cause Notice so that the matter could proceed further. The petitioner has not as yet sub­mitted its final reply to the Show-Cause Notice. 23. From a perusal of the proceed­ings of various dates before the respon­dent No. 3, it is evident that the respon­dent No. 3 has been requiring the peti­tioner to submit its final reply to the Show-Cause Notice so that the matter could proceed further. However, the petitioner has been insisting that the petitioner be first permitted to cross-examine the wit­nesses whose statements had been re­corded during the proceedings by the au­thority concerned, and thereafter, the pe­titioner would submit its final reply. 24. In our view, the insistence of the petitioner that the petitioner be first per­mitted to cross-examine the witnesses, and thereafter, it would submit its reply, is not correct. The petitioner is first re­quired to submit its reply to the Show-Cause Notice putting its defence. The pe­titioner has already been provided photo­stat copies of the relevant documents re­lied upon against the petitioner. Therefore, there is no question of any prejudice to the petitioner in submitting its reply to the Show Cause Notice. 25. In Commissioner of Central Ex­cise, Meerut-l v. Parmarth Iron Pvt. Ltd. ( supra), this Court has laid down as un­der ( Paragraphs 15,16 and 17 of the said E.L.T.): "( 15) The question, however, before us is, does the respondent have a right to call upon the appellants to make available the witnesses for cross-examination even before they being examined or their statements re­lied upon by the Department in proceedings in adjudication. None of the judgments cited above were on the issue of making available the witnesses for cross-examination in or­der to reply to a show-cause notice. Those judgments as already explained were in the course of adjudicating proceedings. Is, therefore, an assessee entitled to cross-examine the witnesses at the stage of filing a reply to the show-cause notice? A show-cause notice is issued on the basis of uncontested material available before the Assessing Authority, who based thereon, has arrived at prima facie finding whether a show-cause notice ought to be issued or not. The material, thus, which has to be con­sidered is, untested and uncorroborated. A party is called upon to reply to the said show-cause notice in order to enable the Revenue to know the stand of the asses-see, in the context of the material produced as to whether the proceedings should be further proceeded with. The material, thus, which has to be con­sidered is, untested and uncorroborated. A party is called upon to reply to the said show-cause notice in order to enable the Revenue to know the stand of the asses-see, in the context of the material produced as to whether the proceedings should be further proceeded with. It is an opportunity to the party being proceeded against to dis­close any material that the party may have to rebut the prima facie opinion. Even if the assessee fails to reply to the show-cause notice, that does not amount to an 'admis­sion' of the contents of the show-cause no­tice in the absence of any statutory provi­sion and it is always open to an assessee to cross-examine the witnesses whose statements are relied upon or sought to be examined on behalf of the Revenue. At the stage of show notice, there is no adjudication. It is only a step in the process of adjudication. The show-cause notice by itself is not an order of assessment. The order of assessment will be passed only after considering the evidence and the ma­terial, which is placed before the quasi-ju­dicial authority/ Tribunal. Therefore, as the show-cause notice is based on prima facie material and constitutes a prima facie opin­ion, that does not result into an order of ad­judication. The question, therefore, of an assessee being entitled to cross-examina­tion, even before the adjudication has commenced, in our opinion, surely would not arise. It is only after the adjudication pro­ceedings have commenced pursuant to the show-cause notice and if the Revenue seeks to reply upon the statements or docu­ments, then the principles of natural justice would require in the absence of any statu­tory provision, that the person whose state­ment was recorded is made available for cross-examination to test the veracity of the statement. ( 16) We, therefore, have no hesitation in holding, that there is no requirement in the Act or Rules, nor do the principles of natural justice and fair play require that the witnesses whose statements were re­corded and relied upon to issue the show-cause notice, are liable to be examined at that stage. If the Revenue choose not to ex­amine any witnesses in adjudication, their statements cannot be considered as evi­dence. If the Revenue choose not to ex­amine any witnesses in adjudication, their statements cannot be considered as evi­dence. However, if the Revenue choose to rely on the statements, then in that event, the persons whose statements are relied upon have to be made available for cross-examination for the evidence or statement to be considered. ( 17) We are, therefore, clearly of the opinion that there is no right, procedurally or substantively or in compliance with natural justice and fair play, to make available the witnesses whose statements were recorded, for cross-examination before the reply to the show-cause notice is filed and before adju­dication commences. The exercise of cross-examination commences only after the proceedings for adjudication have com­menced." ( Emphasis supplied) 26. This decision has thus laid down that at the stage of Show-Cause Notice, there is no adjudication. It is only a step in the process of adjudication. The Show-Cause Notice by itself is not an order of assessment. The order of assessment will be passed only after considering the evi­dence and the material, which is placed before the quasi-judicial authority/Tribu­nal. Therefore, as the Show-Cause No­tice is based on prima facie material and constitutes a prima facie opinion, that does not result into an order of adjudica­tion. The question, therefore, of an asses­see being entitled to cross-examination, even before the adjudication has com­menced, would not arise. It is only after the adjudication proceedings have com­menced pursuant to the Show-Cause No­tice and if the Revenue seeks to rely upon the statements or documents, then the principles of natural justice would require in the absence of any statutory provision, that the person whose statement was re­corded is made available for cross-exami­nation to test the veracity of the statement. 27. There is no requirement in the Act or Rules nor do the principles of natural justice and fair play require that the wit­nesses whose statements were recorded and relied upon to issue the Show-Cause Notice, are liable to be cross-examined at that stage. 28. It has been concluded that there is no right, procedurally or substantively or in compliance with natural justice and fair play, to make available the witnesses whose statements were recorded, for cross-examination before the reply to the Show-Cause Notice is filed and before ad­judication commences. The exercise of cross-examination commences only af­ter the proceedings for adjudication have commenced. 29. 28. It has been concluded that there is no right, procedurally or substantively or in compliance with natural justice and fair play, to make available the witnesses whose statements were recorded, for cross-examination before the reply to the Show-Cause Notice is filed and before ad­judication commences. The exercise of cross-examination commences only af­ter the proceedings for adjudication have commenced. 29. This decision thus shows that the petitioner cannot insist that the petitioner be first permitted to cross-examine the witnesses and thereafter it would submit its reply. The impugned order passed by the respondent No. 3, in our view, does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. 30. Even otherwise, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, this is not a fit case for interference in exercise of Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 31. Before parting with the case, we may refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in Lakshman Exports Ltd. v. Col­lector of Central Excise ( supra), relied upon by Shri K.N. Tripathi, learned Se­nior Counsel appearing for the petitioner. In the said case, in the reply to the Show-Cause Notice, the assessee had specifi­cally asked to be allowed to cross-exam­ine the representations of the two con­cerns to establish that the goods in ques­tion had been accounted for in their books of account and the appropriate amount of Central Excise Duty had been paid. The logic of such request was thus clear. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court, therefore, allowed the appeals, set-aside the impugned order and remanded the matter. 32. Thus, in the above case, the Reply to the Show-Cause Notice had already been filed by the assessee, and in the said Reply, prayer was made for being permitted to cross-examine. 33. The facts of the above case were thus different from those of the present case. In the present case, the final reply to the Show-Cause Notice has not so far been submitted by the petitioner. 34. In view of the above discussion, the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner is liable to-be dismissed. The Writ Petition is, accordingly dis­missed. Petition dismissed.