ORDER : Heard on the question of admission. 2. By this writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is praying for quashment of show cause notice dated 4-4-2016 (Annexure-P/5) and subsequent reminders issued by the authorities from time to time. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a company engaged in the manufacture and export of soya products namely, soya meal, soya flex, soya grits, soya flour, etc. The petitioner is exporting residue left from the extraction of soyabean oil and other variant suitable for use as cattle feed. 4. On 4-4-2016, a show cause notice for misclassification of the export product for obtaining incentive for higher amount has been issued on the ground that the petitioner is exporting residue left from the extraction of soyabean oil which is covered under Chapter Heading 2304 and that by misclassification the petitioner's export product falling under Chapter Head No. 2304 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 as items of Chapter Heading No. 1208 of CETA, 1985, petitioner have taken inadmissible incentive of Rs. 04.26 crores from this office under the VKGUY scheme of Chapter 3. The respondent No. 1, under the scheme of Chapter 3 directed to file reply to the show cause notice as to why petitioner's VKGUY authorizations issued under Chapter Heading 1208 should not be cancelled and the amount involved of Rs. 04.26 crores should not be recovered with applicable interest and why further issuance of authorizations should not be kept on hold till the amount of Rs. 04.26 crores is recovered. 5. On 18-4-2016, a reminder was issued stating therein that no reply has been filed and again the petitioner was advised to submit the reply within 7 days positively along with supporting documents failing which petitioner's IEC will be placed in DEL and the VKGUY authorizations granted earlier will be cancelled as per direction of the excise authorities, without any prior intimation to the petitioner. 6. On 22-4-2016, the petitioner was again asked for the reasons on the ground that no reason was assigned about the alleged misclassification of the exported products and requested to supply the copy of the letter and upon document to the show cause notice. 7. On 13-4-2016, a detailed representation has been given by the petitioner. 6. On 22-4-2016, the petitioner was again asked for the reasons on the ground that no reason was assigned about the alleged misclassification of the exported products and requested to supply the copy of the letter and upon document to the show cause notice. 7. On 13-4-2016, a detailed representation has been given by the petitioner. The department vide its letter dated 26-4-2016 replied to the letter dated 22-4-2016 and asked the petitioner to file reply latest by 8-5-2016 failing which such action as deemed fit under FTDR Act, 1992 will be initiated against him apart from placing the petitioner firm in DEL without any prior intimation. 8. On 6-5-2016, again a letter was issued by the petitioner and this letter was replied by the department on 13-5-2016 stating therein that no proper reply has been filed by the petitioner hence, name of the petitioner firm has been placed in DEL and further directed the petitioner to surrender all the Duty Credit Scrips (as per list attached), if not utilized already, or pay whole amount of the scrips value i.e. 4.26 crores along with 18% interest thereon, within 10 days from the date of issue of the letter, failing which disciplinary action as per FTDR Act, 1992 will be initiated against him. 9. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the export shipping bills, which are on pages 26 to 29 and contended that samples were drawn from every export consignment before clearance of goods and the goods being exported were also examined by the concerned revenue officers. However, no dispute was raised in relation to the classification/description of goods declared by the petitioner on the export documents. He further submitted that various consignments when they were cleared from the factory and also at the port of export, Customs and Central Excise officers have checked the impugned goods and certified in their examination reports that the 'the description, quantity and value of the goods covered by this invoice and particulars amplified in the packing list as such as gross weight checked and certified export mark have been checked after verifying the container'. The contention of the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner that without changing the classification of the product in question by the customs authorities by any orders, the office of the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, Indore, issued a show cause notice on 4-4-2016. This show cause notice nowhere says that under which provision of which particular act, it is issued, no specific reasons is given and apparently, it is a vague show cause notice and asking for the reply without supplying the copies of the documents mentioned in the show cause notice. 10. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner relying on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of C. Ex., Bangalore v. Brindavan Beverages (P) Ltd. reported as 2007 (213) E.L.T. 487 (S.C.), Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur v. Flock (India) Pvt. Ltd. reported as 2000 (120) E.L.T. 285 (S.C.) and Rajkamal Builders (P) Ltd. v. State of M.P. & Ors., reported as 2016 [1] M.P.L.J. 373 and submitted that the respondent No. 1 committed a serious error in issuing show cause notice without changing the assessment order made by the custom authorities and unless the classification is changed in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the law, the notice is without jurisdiction and prayed for quashment of the same. In the case of Commissioner of C. Ex., Bangalore v. Brindavan Beverages (P) Ltd. (supra) in the show cause notice, there was nothing specific as to the role of the respondent therein, if any. In such circumstances, the Apex Court held that the show cause notice is the foundation on which the Department has to build up its case. If the allegations in the show cause notice are not specific and are on the contrary vague, lack details and/or unintelligible that is sufficient to hold that no proper opportunity was given to the noticee to meet allegations indicated in show cause notice. 11. In the instant case, the consignment was not opened for the specific examination by the customs as is evident from the shipping bills, which is at page 26 onwords and, therefore, the judgments cited by the learned Senior Counsel are distinguishable on facts. 11. In the instant case, the consignment was not opened for the specific examination by the customs as is evident from the shipping bills, which is at page 26 onwords and, therefore, the judgments cited by the learned Senior Counsel are distinguishable on facts. Apart from that in the present case an intelligence was collected by the officers of headquarters preventive branch of their Commissionerate that the plant of the petitioner is based on solvent extraction technology and they are exporting residue left from the extraction of soyabean, which is covered under Chapter Heading No. 2304 and not under Chapter Heading No. 1208 of CETA, 1985 and the petitioner has taken inadmissible incentive from the office of Joint Director General of Foreign Trade under VKGUY scheme of Chapter 3. The petitioner has to reply to the show cause notice that the item which he is exporting would fall under Chapter 2304 and not under Chapter 1208. It is also not the case of the petitioner that authority who had issued a show cause notice was not competent to issue show cause notice. The law is well settled by the Apex Court. The petitioner is directed to show his cause and satisfy the authority, thereafter if any, adverse order is passed against him, he may challenge the same by filing an appeal before the Appellate authority. At this stage, it would not be proper for this Court to examine whether his case would come under Chapter 2304 or Chapter 1208 and, therefore, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition and when the matter is sub-judice before the respondent No. 1 - Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, Indore, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, W.P. No. 4554/2016 is dismissed.