Judgment : 1. The show cause notice issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Tiruchirappalli, dated 29 November, 2013, is challenged in this Writ Petition primarily on the ground that it was issued with a pre-determined mind and no useful purpose would be served, by holding further enquiry in the matter. BRIEF FACTS 2. The petitioner is stated to be a constituent of Sanmar Group of Companies engaged in manufacturing various kinds of excisable goods in the State of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry. 3. The petitioner is having a Unit at Viralimalai, Tiruchirapalli. The petitioner manufactures steel castings, stainless steel castings and valve components at Viralimalai. The process of manufacture at Viralimalai involves melting of scrap in the furnace and pouring into patterns and moulds. These castings are made as per customer specifications. The principal raw material is steel scrap or stainless steel scrap. The steel scrap/stainless scrap is procured from the local scrap dealers or manufacturers. The petitioner also imports scrap from overseas. The petitioner used to issue purchase orders for procurement of scrap with description/specification. The duty paid on inputs is available as credit for payment of duty subject to compliance of procedure prescribed under CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The petitioner has been maintaining correct records in respect of receipt, inventory and consumption of raw materials/inputs and the final products. 4. While so, the Anti-Evasion Wing of Central Excise inspected the premises of the petitioner on 18 September, 2012, and verified the input documents/CENVAT credit records for the period from 2008-2009 to 2012-2013. The Inspecting Team seized several documents and pressurized the petitioner to part with a sum of Rs.7.53 Crores. The payment was made without there being an assessment order. It was made under compulsion. The petitioner filed a Writ Petition in W.P. (MD)No.2026 of 2013 for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondent to refund the illegally collected amount. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by this Court, by order dated 08 November, 2013. The respondent was directed either to refund the amount or adjust it towards duty. The Investigating Authority was directed to complete the investigation and issue show cause notice thereafter. The said order was challenged by the petitioner in W.A.(MD) No.339 of 2014. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by this Court, by order dated 08 November, 2013. The respondent was directed either to refund the amount or adjust it towards duty. The Investigating Authority was directed to complete the investigation and issue show cause notice thereafter. The said order was challenged by the petitioner in W.A.(MD) No.339 of 2014. The Writ Appeal was allowed by the Division Bench, by judgment dated 30 April, 2014 and a Mandamus was issued to the respondent to refund the amount, within a period of four weeks. 5. The respondent, in the meantime, issued a show cause notice to the petitioner, pursuant to the order in W.P.(MD)No.2026 of 2013. The petitioner submitted its reply to the show cause notice. The petitioner, thereafter, filed this Writ Petition challenging the show cause notice. 6. The petitioner has taken up a contention that the respondent has already decided to pass an order as indicated in the show cause notice. Therefore, it is a futile exercise to submit to the jurisdiction of the respondent. 7. The respondent through its Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, filed a counter-affidavit. According to the respondent, Customs Department conducted preliminary investigation. The investigation prima facie revealed that the petitioner had availed input credit based on the invoices showing purchase of materials, like Re-rollable scrap, defective HR Steel plates, Sec HR Steel plates, etc. However, those materials were not actually required for the manufacturing activities of the Unit. The respondent denied the allegation that the statutory authority has pre-determined the issue and the matter would not be considered on merits. SUBMISSIONS: 8. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner made the following substantial contentions: (i) The respondent, without any authority, forcibly collected a sum of Rs.7.53 crores from the petitioner. The respondent tried its level best to retain the said money. It was only on account of the direction given by the Division Bench, the respondent refunded the amount. The respondent, therefore, would pass an order rejecting the contention taken by the petitioner in its reply with a view to justify the collection. (ii) The show cause notice contains a clear adjudication against the petitioner. The respondent very clearly stated that the petitioner violated the provisions of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and as such, they are liable to pay huge amount by way of penalty and interest. (ii) The show cause notice contains a clear adjudication against the petitioner. The respondent very clearly stated that the petitioner violated the provisions of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and as such, they are liable to pay huge amount by way of penalty and interest. (iii) The respondent filed a counter-affidavit in this Writ Petition. In the said counter-affidavit, the respondent justified the action and indicated that the statements contained in the show cause notices are all correct. (iv) The show cause notice proceeds as if the respondent detected the violations committed by the petitioner. The respondent has pre-determined the issue. (v) The respondent was forced to refund the money. The attempt, therefore, would be to justify the action somehow or the other. It is, therefore, not wise to submit to the jurisdiction of the said authority. (vi) There would be no hearing on merits and the enquiry would be an empty formality. 9. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent contended that the petitioner has already submitted to the jurisdiction of the respondent by submitting its reply. The findings given in the show cause notice are all tentative in nature. The respondent would consider the issue on merits and a reasoned order would be passed. ANALYSIS: 10. The petitioner is having a factory at Viralimalai. The petitioner, for its manufacturing purposes, used to procure scrap and other materials from local dealers or manufacturers. The petitioner, having paid duty on these inputs, is entitled to duty exemption on final products. The petitioner has been availing input credit based on the invoices showing purchase of materials, like Re-rollable scrap, defective HR Steel plates, Sec HR Steel plates, etc. 11. The investigation in respect of the alleged violation of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 by the petitioner commenced, by inspecting its premises by the Anti-Evasion Squad of Central Excise on 18 September, 2012. 12. The petitioner, in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, contended that the officials and the representatives of the Management were all subjected to humiliation and under coercion and threat, a sum of Rs.7.53 crores was illegally collected from them. The respondent, on the other hand, contended that it was a voluntary payment. According to the respondent, the petitioner wanted return of certain documents and as a condition precedent, a sum of Rs.7.53 crores was deposited. The respondent, on the other hand, contended that it was a voluntary payment. According to the respondent, the petitioner wanted return of certain documents and as a condition precedent, a sum of Rs.7.53 crores was deposited. It is not necessary to consider the legality of the action taken by the respondent with respect to the amount collected, in view of the order passed by the Division Bench. 13. The only question that arises for consideration is as to whether the respondent has already pre-determined the issue and whether the enquiry is an empty formality. 14. The respondent in its show cause notice dated 29 November, 2013, prima facie demonstrated that the petitioner made an attempt to obtain CENVAT Credit by manipulating records. The respondent has given certain instances to suggest that the petitioner availed CENVAT Credit, notwithstanding its ineligibility. Similarly, in the counter-affidavit filed in this Writ Petition also, the deponent has stated that the investigation conducted prima facie disclosed the commission of certain illegal acts by the petitioner. 15. The core issue is whether by giving certain illustration or by giving certain indications on the basis of the investigation conducted so far, or by stating in the counter-affidavit that the case pleaded by the petitioner is not correct, it could be said that the authority has taken a decision to pass an order against the petitioner by confirming the tentative findings. 16. The petitioner was called upon to submit its explanation. The petitioner must know the charges levelled against it so as to enable it to submit an effective reply. In case the basis for taking action is not disclosed in the show cause notice, it would not be possible for the assessee, like the petitioner to submit an effective reply. The Courts have, time and again, while considering the legality of charge memos issued to the employees, made it very clear that the charges should not be vague. It should be specific and the delinquent should be in a position to submit a reply after understanding the nature of charges. Here is an assessee who is finding fault with the department for furnishing materials in advance which were collected during the time of investigation. 17. The show cause notice in this case cannot be termed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the matter. Here is an assessee who is finding fault with the department for furnishing materials in advance which were collected during the time of investigation. 17. The show cause notice in this case cannot be termed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the matter. The fact that the respondent failed to indicate that these are all tentative findings would not go to show that the statutory authority has, once for all, decided the issue against the petitioner. The respondent, with a view to give an opportunity to the petitioner to explain its position, with regard to the incriminating materials collected during the time of investigation, disclosed all those materials in the notice. The respondent could have very well withheld those information, in which case, the petitioner would come to know of these materials only from the final order passed after enquiry. The disclosure of information in the show cause notice is now taken as a ground to challenge it under the pretext that it reflects the predetermined mind. The findings found in the show cause notice are all tentative in nature. The respondent made it very clear that these materials were collected during the time of investigation. All those materials are now furnished to the petitioner. It is for the petitioner to deny each of these statements and thereafter, to submit its defence. In case the respondent failed to disclose the materials collected during the time of investigation and called upon the petitioner to submit its reply merely by saying that they have falsely claimed CENVAT Credit, the petitioner, while challenging the final order, would very well contend that they were prevented from submitting an effective reply, on account of non disclosure of relevant information and the failure to furnish relevant materials. 18. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has taken up a contention that even in the counter-affidavit, the respondent made an attempt to justify the action. The Writ Petition was filed only by the petitioner. The petitioner, in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, very clearly stated that they have not committed any illegality and credit was rightly claimed. The respondent is expected to submit a reply with reference to the allegations and averments found in the affidavit. In case the statements are not denied, it would virtually amount to admission. 19. The Supreme Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. The respondent is expected to submit a reply with reference to the allegations and averments found in the affidavit. In case the statements are not denied, it would virtually amount to admission. 19. The Supreme Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Darius Shapur Chenai [ 2005(7) SCC 627 ], observed that when rule nisi was issued, the State was required to produce the records and file a counter-affidavit and if it did not file such affidavit, it may, subject to just exceptions, be held to have admitted the allegations made in the Writ Petition. 20. The respondent, in the counter-affidavit, very clearly stated that the preliminary investigation conducted by the department prima facie revealed that the petitioner availed CENVAT Credit, without actually using the materials shown in the purchase invoices. 21. The show cause notice contained various details. It starts from verification at factory premises and evidence collected. The respondent, in the show cause notice dated 29 November, 2013, categorized the background facts, materials collected and the prima facie findings in the following words: "(i) verification at factory premises and evidences found; (ii) verification at the major suppliers (II stage dealer) to Sanmar; (iii) deposition of company officials; (iv) deposition of first stage dealers/manufacturers; (v) depositions of custom house agents involved in the clearance of the alleged imported materials; (vi) depositions of the major suppliers to the petitioner (second stage dealer); (vii) further documentary evidences; (viii) payment by Sanmar towards liability; (ix) provisional release of seized goods; (x) summary of charges; (xi) quantification of central excise duty liability; (xii) quantification of central excise duty liability towards shortage of 'scrap' noticed during stock taking; (xiii) contraventions; (xiv) invocation of extended period; and (xv) penal provisions. 22. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in paragraph 21 of the show cause notice, the respondent has very clearly indicated that the petitioner is liable to pay the amount shown therein and as such, the notice though termed as 'a show cause notice' is actually a final order determining liability. I am not inclined to entertain the said argument for more than one reason. 23. The respondent in a very fair manner disclosed all the materials collected during the course of investigation. Nothing was withheld. I am not inclined to entertain the said argument for more than one reason. 23. The respondent in a very fair manner disclosed all the materials collected during the course of investigation. Nothing was withheld. In case an argument of this nature is entertained that by giving details of the violations and the evidence collected in the show cause notice as well as in the counter-affidavit, no purpose would be served by submitting to the jurisdiction of the statutory authority, none of the authorities, exercising jurisdiction under various Statutes and more particularly, under the Central Excise Act, would be in a position to discharge the statutory function. Merely because the show cause notice does not contain a specific word that these are all prima facie findings, the petitioner cannot be heard to say that the respondent has decided the issue once for all and the notice is issued only as a ritual. It is not as if the order passed by the respondent is final. The Central Sales Tax Act contains hierarchy of authorities, in case final order is passed by the respondent by rejecting the explanation. The petitioner is also having a remedy of appeal before the High Court. 24. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, by placing reliance on the judgments in Siemens Ltd v. State of Maharashtra [2007(207) E.L.T. 168(SC)], TRF Ltd v. Commr. of C.Ex & Service Tax, Jamshedpur [2013(293) E.L.T. 172(Jhar)] and SBQ Steels Ltd vs. Commissioner of Cus., C.Ex. & S.T., Guntur [2014(300) E.L.T. 185(A.P.)], contended that the Supreme Court and the High Courts have made the position very clear that in case the authorities have determined the liability and only question which remains for its consideration is quantification thereof, the same does not remain in the realm of show cause notice. 25. In Siemens's case, the Supreme Court found that the statutory authority has already determined the liability and the only question which remains for further consideration was its quantification. It was only under the said factual context, the Supreme court observed that the show cause notice does not remain in the realm of a show cause notice. However, that is not the case here. The respondent has not determined the liability so far. The materials collected by the respondent to fix the liability are disclosed in the show cause notice. However, that is not the case here. The respondent has not determined the liability so far. The materials collected by the respondent to fix the liability are disclosed in the show cause notice. Those materials were disclosed only with a view to enable the petitioner to submit its reply. The decision in Siemens's case, therefore, would not apply to the facts of the case. Similarly, in the judgments of the Division Bench of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi and the High Court of Judicature for Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, it was found that the authority has already pre-determined the issue. However, no such pre-determination was made here by the respondent. I am, therefore, of the view that neither the materials disclosed in the show cause notice nor the statement made in the counter-affidavit would go to show that the respondent has already applied its mind and has formed a definite opinion with regard to the violation committed by the petitioner. 26. The Supreme Court in Secretary, Min. of Defence vs. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha [ 2012(5) Scale 734 ], in the context of disciplinary proceedings held that under ordinary circumstances, a Writ Petition would not lie to set aside a show cause notice. The Supreme Court observed: "11. Ordinarily a writ application does not lie against a chargesheet or show cause notice for the reason that it does not give rise to any cause of action. It does not amount to an adverse order which affects the right of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction/competence to do so. A writ lies when some right of a party is infringed. In fact, chargesheet does not infringe the right of a party. It is only when a final order imposing the punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, it may have a grievance and cause of action. Thus, a chargesheet or show cause notice in disciplinary proceedings should not ordinarily be quashed by the Court." 27. Therefore, on a careful consideration of the background facts, I am of the view that the petitioner has not made out a case for quashing the statutory proceedings. 28. In the upshot, I dismiss the Writ Petition. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. No costs.