UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusCOASTAL CONTAINER TRANSPORTERS ASSOCIATION & ORS.

                         [2019] 4 S.C.R. 915                              915


                    UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                                 A
                                  v.
           COASTAL CONTAINER TRANSPORTERS
                   ASSOCIATION & ORS.
                (Civil Appeal No. 2276 of 2019)                           B
                        FEBRUARY 26, 2019
   [UDAY UMESH LALIT AND R. SUBHASH REDDY, JJ.]
       Constitution of India: Art.226 – Show cause notice issued
under s.73 of Finance Act by appellant-authority proposing to
                                                                          C
demand service tax from respondents under the category of “cargo
handling service” – Respondent’s case was that the service
provided by them fell under the taxable category of “goods
transport agency” – Writ petition filed by respondents before the
High Court challenging the show cause notice – High Court
quashed the show cause notice – On appeal, held: High Court               D
committed error in entertaining the writ petition under Art.226 at
the stage of show cause notices – Neither it was a case of lack of
jurisdiction nor any violation of principles of natural justice was
alleged so as to entertain the writ petition at the stage of notice –
High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition, more so,
                                                                          E
when against the final orders appeal lies to the Supreme Court –
When there is a serious dispute with regard to classification of
service, the respondents ought to have responded to the show cause
notices by placing material in support of their stand but at the same
time, there was no reason to approach the High Court questioning
the very show cause notices – Moreover, even the contents of show         F
cause notices did not sow that there were no factual disputes –
Finance Act, 1994 – s.73.
      Allowing the appeal, the Court
      HELD: 1. The controversy in the instant case related to
the classification of services rendered by the respondents. It is         G
not in dispute that if the show cause notices culminate into an
order, the appeal would lie to this Court. If any finding is recorded
by this Court at this stage, same will prejudice either of the parties.
In view of the contentions raised, it cannot be said that there are
                                                                          H
                                 915
916            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2019] 4 S.C.R.


A     no factual disputes. Applicability of the circulars dated 06.08.2008
      and 05.10.2015 was also in serious dispute. Further the
      classifiability of service rendered by a particular assessee is to
      be considered with reference to facts of each case depending
      upon nature of service rendered and the contract entered into.
      There cannot be any general declaration, as prayed for. It is true
B
      that circulars issued by the CBEC are binding on the authorities,
      but at the same time, such circulars are applicable or not, is a
      matter which is to be considered with reference to facts of each
      case. When it is the case of the appellants that such circulars
      referred would apply only in case of road transportation but not
C     otherwise, then it is a case for consideration by competent
      authority on receipt of the explanation but same is no ground to
      quash the show cause notices. [Paras 16, 18] [924-C; 925-B-H;
      926-A]
             2. When there is a serious dispute with regard to
D     classification of service, the respondents ought to have responded
      to the show cause notices by placing material in support of their
      stand but at the same time, there is no reason to approach the
      High Court questioning the very show cause notices.
      [Para 19] [926-E-F]
E           Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise & Anr. v. Sushil
            and Company (2016) 13 SCC 223; Union of India &
            Anr. v. Guwahati Carbon Limited (2012) 11 SCC 651;
            Union of India v. Hindustan Dev. Corpn. Ltd. 1998
            (100) ELT 14 (SC); Malladi Drugs & Pharma Ltd. v.
            Union of India 2004 (166) ELT 153 (SC) – relied on.
F
            Paper Products Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise
            1999 (112) ELT 765 (SC) – held inapplicable.
                             Case Law Reference
            (2016) 13 SCC 223            relied on          Para 11
G
            (2012) 11 SCC 651            relied on          Para 13
            1998 (100) ELT 14 (SC)       relied on          Para 13
            1999 (112) ELT 765 (SC)      held inapplicable Para 14
            2004 (166) ELT 153 (SC)      relied on          Para 19
H
          UNION OF INDIA v. COASTAL CONTAINER                                   917
              TRANSPORTERS ASSOCIATION

      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2276                       A
of 2019.
      From the Judgment and Order dated 18.12.2017 of the High
Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Special Civil Application No. 6679 of
2016.
     K. Radha Krishnan, Sr. Adv., Ms. Sunita Rani Singh, Ms. Nisha              B
Bagchi, Ms. Nera Malik, B. Krishna Prasad, Advs. for the Appellants.
      Dr. A. M. Singhvi, S. K. Bagaria, Sr. Advs., Arijit Prasad, Hardik
Modh, Ms. Devanshi Singh, Ms. Aastha Mehta, Ms. Deepanwita
Priyanka, Advs. for the Respondents.
                                                                                C
       The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
       R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. 1. Leave granted.
      2. This civil appeal is filed by Union of India and others, respondents
in Special Civil Application No.6679 of 2016 filed before the High Court
of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, aggrieved by the judgment and order dated              D
18.12.2017. By the aforesaid order, the High Court has quashed the
show cause notices dated 08.10.2015 and 30.09.2015 issued by the
appellants, in exercise of power under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act,
1994 (for short, ‘the Act’).
        3. The first respondent is Coastal Container Transporters               E
Association and the second and third respondents are, Yamuna Shipping
Logistics Pvt. Ltd. and Pushpak Logistics Pvt. Ltd. who are engaged in
the transport business. They have filed the aforesaid writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court. Though
show cause notices dated 08.10.2015 and 30.09.2015 were issued to
                                                                                F
respondent nos.2 and 3, in anticipation of similar notices to its members,
the first respondent-association also joined respondent nos.2 and 3 in the
writ petition. In the aforesaid writ petition, the appellants herein have
filed Civil Application No.2952 of 2017 raising preliminary objection with
regard to maintainability of the writ petition itself. While allowing the
Special Civil Application, the said civil application is also rejected by the   G
High Court, by impugned order.
       4. Necessary facts, in brief, are as under :
       First respondent is an association, whose members are transport
operators engaged in the business of transportation of goods entrusted
                                                                                H
918             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2019] 4 S.C.R.


A     by the customers. By way of impugned show cause notices, the
      appellants have proposed to demand service tax from the respondents
      under the category of “cargo handling service”, while it is the case of
      the respondents that the service which is being provided by them, falls
      under the taxable category of “goods transport agency”. The
      respondents, to bolster their case, have placed reliance upon circulars
B
      dated 06.08.2008 and 05.10.2015 issued by the Central Board of Excise
      and Customs (CBEC).
             Based upon the intelligence gathered by the officers of Rajkot
      Regional Unit, which revealed that several business entities including
      respondent nos.2 and 3 who are engaged in doing the business of cargo
C     handling in west coastal region but had got themselves registered under
      “good transport agency”, by taking approval from the competent
      authorities, searches were conducted in the premises of respondent nos.2
      and 3. It is alleged that during such searches several incriminating
      documents, including the quotations submitted by the respondent-
D     companies to their customers were seized and statements of the Directors
      were recorded as per the provisions of Central Excise Act, 1944 read
      with the provisions under Finance Act, 1994. Subsequently, the show
      cause notices dated 08.10.2015 and 30.09.2015, were issued to respondent
      nos.2 and 3, which are impugned in the writ petition filed before the
      High Court.
E
             5. It is the case of the appellants that the respondents, with a view
      to evade payment of service tax, have split the whole transactions into
      three parts, i.e., from the place of consignor to Kandla/Mundra Port by
      road, from Kandla/Mundra Port in Gujarat to Kochi/Tuticorin Ports in
      South India by sea route and from Kochi/Tuticorin Ports in South India
F     to the place of the consignee by road. It is the further case of the
      appellants that if the respondents are registered under the category of
      “cargo handling service”, no abatement would have been admissible
      and whole of the transaction from the consignor to consignee would be
      covered under the taxable services which attract higher rate of service
G     tax.
             6. On the other hand, it is the case of the respondent – original
      petitioners in the writ petition that the show cause notices, impugned in
      the writ petition, have been issued contrary to the provisions of Finance
      Act, 1994 and also contrary to the circulars issued by the CBEC itself
H
       UNION OF INDIA v. COASTAL CONTAINER                                      919
  TRANSPORTERS ASSOCIATION [R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.]

from time to time. It is the further case of the respondents that when          A
they receive orders from customers there is a clear understanding
between the customers and them, that they merely provide service of
transportation of goods by road, whereas services at port area and
transportation of goods through waterways would be provided by shipping
lines. The respondents would raise a bill for transportation of goods by
                                                                                B
road and debit note for recovery of expenses which they incur for shipping
lines for providing services at port area and transportation of goods through
waterways. It is also their case that they would not add any margin
while recovering money from their customers towards port and shipping
line charges.
       7. In the writ petition filed before the High Court, a preliminary       C
objection was raised on behalf of appellant nos.2 and 3 with regard to
maintainability of the petition. Firstly, it was pleaded that as the writ
petition itself was directed against the show cause notices, such petition
was not maintainable. Secondly, on the ground that as the controversy
relates to classification of services and even if the show cause notices        D
were to culminate into final order, appeal would lie before the Supreme
Court, as such, High Court, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, should refrain
from entertaining the petition which involves a classification dispute. It
was pleaded that it was not either a case of lack of jurisdiction or a case
where the principles of natural justice are violated, so as to entertain the
petition in which only show cause notices were challenged.                      E
       8. On the other hand, it was the case of the respondent-original
writ petitioners that there is no absolute prohibition for not maintaining
the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, even at the
stage of show cause notice. It was their case that even taking the
contents, as mentioned in the show cause notices, the contract does not         F
amount to providing “cargo handling service” as defined under Entry 23
of Section 65 of the Act. By placing reliance on Circular No.B11/1/
2002-TRU dated 01.08.2002 issued by the CBEC, it was the case of the
respondents that “cargo handling service” means loading, unloading,
packing or unpacking of cargo and includes cargo handling services,
                                                                                G
services provided for freight in special containers or in non-containerised
freight, services provided by container freight terminal or any other freight
terminal, for all modes of transport or any other service incidental to
freight. It was their case that the respondents were not packing or
unpacking, as such, it cannot be classified under “cargo handling service”.
                                                                                H
920             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2019] 4 S.C.R.


A            9. Before the High Court, it was the case of appellant nos.2 and 3
      that w.e.f. 01.07.2012, the scheme of service tax has changed and the
      negative list regime has been brought into force. It was their case that
      the circulars issued prior to the amendment in the parent Act would not
      be applicable subsequent to such amendment. It was their case that
      with a view to evade payment of service tax, the respondents have split
B
      the whole transaction into three parts. If the respondents were registered
      under the category of “cargo handling service”, no abatement would
      have been admissible, as the whole of the transaction from consignor to
      consignee would be covered under taxable service. Reference was
      made to Section 66F of the Act which provides the principles of
C     interpretation of specified descriptions of services or bundled services,
      more particularly, to sub-section (3) thereof which provides for the manner
      of determination of the taxability of bundled service. Clause (b) thereof
      provides that if various elements of such service are not naturally bundled
      in the ordinary course of business, it shall be treated as provision of the
      single service which results in highest liability of service tax. By referring
D
      to the definition of “cargo handling service”, as stood prior to its
      substitution by Finance Act, 2008, it was submitted that the earlier
      definition of “cargo handling service” did not include transportation and
      w.e.f. 16.05.2008, the definition of “cargo handling service” came to be
      amended by including the service of packing together with transportation
E     of cargo or goods, with or without one or more other services like loading,
      unloading, packing, unpacking.
              10. Precisely, it was the case of the appellants that once members
      of the respondent-association undertake the responsibility to deliver goods
      from consignor to consignee and more particularly, when they are also
F     providing cargo handling service, with the help of other service providers,
      the service provided by them would fall within the ambit of cargo handling
      service, inasmuch as the help from other service providers does not
      change the nature of service that is being provided by them. It was also
      stated that shipping lines raise bills in the name of respondents and if any
      service tax has been charged, the respondents would be within their
G     rights to take cenvat credit of the same in accordance with the rules and
      regulations. However, that would not change the nature of services
      rendered by them.


H
          UNION OF INDIA v. COASTAL CONTAINER                                    921
     TRANSPORTERS ASSOCIATION [R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.]

       11. While considering the contentions advanced on both sides, the         A
High Court has over-ruled the objection of maintainability of the petition
and has recorded a finding that the services rendered by the members
of the respondent-association are classifiable under “goods transport
agency” but not under “cargo handling service”. High Court has referred
to the definition of “cargo handling service” under Section 65(23) of the
                                                                                 B
Act, Circular No.B11/1/2002-TRU dated 01.08.2002 and by referring
to the instructions dated 06.08.2008 issued in circular no.104/7/2008-
S.T. and circular bearing no.186/5/2015-S.T. dated 05.10.2015, has held
that even after introduction of new regime w.e.f. 01st July 2012, the
activity of the respondents falls within the classified category of “goods
transport agency” but not “cargo handling service”. High Court has               C
further held that so far as the service of loading and unloading at the port
and shipping of goods from one port to other is concerned, the respondents
are the recipients of such service from the shipping lines and/or cargo
handling service on behalf of the customers. The High Court has held
that so far as the service rendered by shipping line is concerned, the
                                                                                 D
shipping line issues invoice in favour of the respondents, who, in turn,
issue debit note to the customer without adding any charge in respect of
such service. Further, it is held that, if transportation is to be included in
“cargo handling service”, packing is an essential ingredient of the same.
In conclusion, it is held by the High Court that in view of the binding
circulars issued by the CBEC, the service rendered by the respondents            E
has to be considered on the basis of main service provided by them, viz.,
good transport agency and it is not permissible for the appellants to take
a stand contrary to such circulars. The High Court has held that the
notices impugned in the writ petition, are contrary to the binding circulars
issued by the CBEC, in such circumstances, respondents are entitled to
                                                                                 F
invoke the writ jurisdiction of the court. Further, it is held that as there
are no factual disputes and only legal issue is required to be decided and
by placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Deputy
Commissioner, Central Excise & Anr. v. Sushil and Company1,
has over-ruled the objection of maintainability of the writ petition raised
by the appellants. With the aforesaid findings, the High Court has taken         G
the view that no useful purpose would be served in relegating the
respondents - original writ petitioners to the adjucating authority for
adjudication pursuant to show cause notices which were issued without

1
    (2016) 13 SCC 223                                                            H
922             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2019] 4 S.C.R.


A     any legal basis, while allowing the writ petition filed by the respondents,
      quashed the notices dated 08.10.2015 and 30.09.2015 and further
      rejected Civil Application No.6679 of 2016 filed by the appellants raising
      the preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the writ petition.
             12. We have heard Sri K. Radhakrishnan, learned senior counsel
B     for the appellants and Dr. A.M. Singhvi, learned senior counsel for the
      respondents.
             13. Learned senior counsel, Sri Radhakrishnan, appearing for the
      appellants has submitted that the High Court has committed a serious
      error in entertaining the petition which itself is directed against the show
C     cause notices. It is submitted that as the issue relates to classifiability
      for the purpose of taxation, more so, against the final order, appeal is
      provided to the Supreme Court, High Court ought not to have entertained
      the writ petition at all. It is further submitted that once the respondents
      undertook the responsibility of delivery of goods from consignor to
      consignee and more particularly when they are also providing cargo
D     handling service, may be with the help from other service providers, the
      service provided by them would fall within the ambit of “cargo handling
      service”. It is submitted that shipping lines raise bill in the name of
      respondents and if any service tax is charged, the respondents are well
      within their rights to take cenvat credit of the same in accordance with
E     the rules. However, that would not change the nature of service rendered
      by the respondents from “cargo handling service” to “goods transport
      agency”. It is contended that circulars which are relied on by the High
      Court are applicable only in cases where transportation is undertaken by
      road. It is submitted that circulars are not correctly interpreted by the
      High Court, so as to extend the benefit of such circulars to the
F     respondents. Learned senior counsel has made reference to Rule 5
      sub-rule (2)(ii) of Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006
      which are framed in exercise of powers under Section 94 of the Finance
      Act, 1994. While referring to the judgment of this Court in the case of
      Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise & Anr. v. Sushil and
G     Company (supra), which is relied on by the High Court, it is submitted
      that in the aforesaid case, the assessee was only supplying labour and
      such labour was not doing any work of loading and unloading of any
      cargo. In such event and as the very contract was only for supply of
      labour, this Court has held that such service cannot be said to be cargo

H
         UNION OF INDIA v. COASTAL CONTAINER                                    923
    TRANSPORTERS ASSOCIATION [R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.]

handling service to impose service tax. It is submitted that the said           A
judgment will not support the case of the respondents at all. Further, it is
contended that it is not a case of either lack of jurisdiction or notices are
issued in violation of principles of natural justice, so as to entertain the
writ petition at the stage of show cause notice. It is further submitted
that as the issue relates to classification of taxable service, the High
                                                                                B
Court should not have entertained the writ petition at all. In support of
his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of
this Court in the case of Union of India & Anr. v. Guwahati Carbon
Limited2 and also in the case of Union of India v. Hindustan Dev.
Corpn. Ltd.3. It is submitted that in the aforesaid judgment in the case
of Hindustan Dev. Corpn. Ltd. (supra) it is clearly held by this Court,         C
that writ petition is not to be entertained at show cause notice stage
when the dispute relates to classification.
       14. On the other hand, it is contended by Dr. Singhvi, learned
senior counsel appearing for the respondents that there are absolutely
no grounds to interfere with the well considered judgment of the High           D
Court. It is submitted that the respondents are engaged in providing
service of delivery of cargo from factories situated in Gujarat via Kandla/
Mundra ports in Gujarat to Kochi, Mangalore and Tuticorin ports in Kerala
through road and sea route. In order to provide service to the customers,
respondent-companies take services of various intermediaries like lorry
                                                                                E
owners, shipping agencies etc. However, all the intermediaries raise the
invoices in the name of aforesaid respondent companies only. It is
submitted that the shipping agencies provide service to the respondent
companies by raising invoice in their name and they issue a debit note of
the same amount in the name of the customers. The respondent
companies undertake the composite responsibility. It is submitted that          F
the main activity of the respondents falls in the category of “goods
transport agency” as defined under Section 65(50b) of the Act. It is
further submitted that the respondents do not carry out any activity of
packing or unpacking and if at all any activity of loading or unloading is
undertaken, same is merely incidental to the main activity of “goods
                                                                                G
transport agency”. It is submitted that circulars dated 06.08.2008 and
05.10.2015 also support the case of the respondents. Further, it is
submitted by learned senior counsel that the issue of classifiability is also

2
    (2012) 11 SCC 651
3
    1998 (100) ELT 14 (S.C.)                                                    H
924                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2019] 4 S.C.R.


A     squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Deputy
      Commissioner, Central Excise & Anr. v. Sushil and Company
      (supra). It is contended by learned senior counsel that circulars issued
      by CBEC are binding on the departmental authorities and they cannot
      take a contrary stand. Learned senior counsel has also placed reliance
      on a judgment of this Court in the case of Paper Products Ltd. v.
B
      Commissioner of Central Excise4.

            15. Having heard learned senior counsels on both sides, we have
      perused the entire material placed on record.

             16. The controversy in the present case relates to the classification
C
      of services rendered by the respondents. It is also not in dispute that if
      the show cause notices culminate into an order, the appeal would lie to
      this Court. When the show cause notices are issued to respondent nos.2
      and 3-members, the writ petition is filed by the first respondent-association
      and the recipients of show cause notices who are respondent nos.2
D     and 3.

             17. It is the case of the appellants that if service as a whole, is
      taken into consideration, it falls within the classifiable category of “cargo
      handling service” but not “goods transport agency”. On the other hand,
      it is the case of the respondents that they only undertake road
E     transportation, and so far as cargo handled by shipping agencies is
      concerned, they prepare bills in the name of the respondent companies
      and in turn respondents issue debit note to their customers to the extent
      of charges payable to the shipping agencies, as such their service falls in
      the category of “goods transport agency” but not “cargo handling
F     service”. While it is the case of the respondents that, show cause notices
      issued run contrary to circulars dated 06.08.2008 and 05.10.2015 issued
      by the CBEC, it is the case of the appellants that such circulars are not
      applicable to the respondents, and the circulars are applicable only when
      transportation is only by road. In the writ petition filed before the High
      Court, appellants have filed civil application by raising preliminary
G     objection with regard to the maintainability of the petition under Article
      226 of Constitution of India at the stage of show cause notices. Such
      objection is also rejected by the High Court by recording a finding that

      4
          1999 (112) ELT 765 (S.C.)
H
      UNION OF INDIA v. COASTAL CONTAINER                                      925
 TRANSPORTERS ASSOCIATION [R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.]

there are no factual disputes and also in view of the judgment of this         A
Court in the case of Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise & Anr.
v. Sushil and Company (supra).

        18. As we are not in agreement with the view taken by the High
Court, in entertaining the writ petition against show cause notices, we
refrain from recording any finding on contentious issues which arise for       B
consideration. If any finding is recorded by this Court at this stage,
same will prejudice either of the parties. Having regard to the contentions
raised, it cannot be said that there are no factual disputes. Applicability
of the circulars dated 06.08.2008 and 05.10.2015 is also in serious dispute.
Further the classifiability of service rendered by a particular assessee is    C
to be considered with reference to facts of each case depending upon
nature of service rendered and the contract entered into. There cannot
be any general declaration, as prayed for. The judgment of this Court in
the case of Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise & Anr. v. Sushil
and Company (supra) also cannot be applied to the facts of the case on
hand to come to the conclusion that the services rendered by the               D
respondents will fall in the category of “goods transport agency” but not
“cargo handling service”. In the aforesaid judgment, the contract was
only for supply of labour and it was the specific case of the assessee
that such labour was not doing any work of packing, unpacking, loading,
unloading of any cargo. In view of such written contract for limited           E
services referred above, this Court has held that such service cannot be
held to be “cargo handling service”. The said judgment is distinguishable
on facts and same cannot be applied to the case on hand, so as to accept
the case of the respondents that their service is to be classified in the
category of “goods transport agency” but not “cargo handling service”.
Further, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents, Dr. Singhvi,    F
also placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in the case of Paper
Products Ltd. (supra) in support of his argument that circulars issued
by the CBEC are binding on departmental authorities and they cannot
take a contrary stand. It is true that circulars issued by the CBEC are
binding on the authorities, but at the same time, such circulars are           G
applicable or not, is a matter which is to be considered with reference to
facts of each case. When it is the case of the appellants that such
circulars referred above would apply only in case of road transportation


                                                                               H
926                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2019] 4 S.C.R.


A     but not otherwise, then it is a case for consideration by competent authority
      on receipt of the explanation but same is no ground to quash the show
      cause notices. In that view of the matter, we are of the view that the
      judgment of this Court relied on by learned senior counsel in the case of
      Paper Products Ltd. (supra) also would not render any support.
B             19. On the other hand, we find force in the contention of the
      learned senior counsel, Sri Radhakrishnan, appearing for the appellants
      that the High Court has committed error in entertaining the writ petition
      under Article 226 of Constitution of India at the stage of show cause
      notices. Though there is no bar as such for entertaining the writ petitions
      at the stage of show cause notice, but it is settled by number of decisions
C
      of this Court, where writ petitions can be entertained at the show cause
      notice stage. Neither it is a case of lack of jurisdiction nor any violation
      of principles of natural justice is alleged so as to entertain the writ petition
      at the stage of notice. High Court ought not to have entertained the writ
      petition, more so, when against the final orders appeal lies to this Court.
D     The judgment of this Court in the case of Union of India & Anr. v.
      Guwahati Carbon Ltd. (supra) relied on by the learned senior counsel
      for the appellants also supports their case. In the aforesaid judgment,
      arising out of Central Excise Act, 1944, this Court has held that excise
      law is a complete code in order to seek redress in excise matters and
      held that entertaining writ petition is not proper where alternative remedy
E
      under statute is available. When there is a serious dispute with regard to
      classification of service, the respondents ought to have responded to the
      show cause notices by placing material in support of their stand but at
      the same time, there is no reason to approach the High Court questioning
      the very show cause notices. Further, as held by the High Court, it
F     cannot be said that even from the contents of show cause notices there
      are no factual disputes. Further, the judgment of this Court in the case
      of Malladi Drugs & Pharma Ltd. v. Union of India5, relied on by the
      learned senior counsel for the appellants also supports their case where
      this Court has upheld the judgment of the High Court which refused to
      interfere at show cause notice stage.
G
             20. For the aforesaid reasons, we allow this appeal and set aside
      the judgment and order dated 18.12.2017 passed by the High Court of
      Gujarat in Special Civil Application No.6679 of 2016.

      5
          2004 (166) ELT 153 (S.C.)
H
       UNION OF INDIA v. COASTAL CONTAINER                                   927
  TRANSPORTERS ASSOCIATION [R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.]

       21. We, however, grant four weeks’ time, to file responses/further    A
responses to the show cause notices dated 08.10.2015 and 30.09.2015,
to the respondent nos.2 and 3. On receipt of such responses from the
respondents or after expiry of the aforesaid time, it is open for the
appellants to consider the same on their own merits and pass appropriate
orders, uninfluenced by any of the observations made by this Court in
                                                                             B
this judgment.


Devika Gujral                                              Appeal allowed.


                                                                             C




                                                                             D




                                                                             E




                                                                             F




                                                                             G




                                                                             H