1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CENTRAL EXCISE APPLICATION NO.13 OF 2002 The Commissioner of Central Excise. ...Applicant vs. M/s.Sai Galvanizers & Fabricators (Pvt) Ltd. ...Respondent. --- Mr.P.S.Jetly with A.S.Rao, for Applicant. CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED: 21st October,2008. P.C.:- 1. This application was admitted on 23.6.2005 on the following questions of law:- “(i) Whether the communication dated 12.3.1990 and 5.4.1990, asking the assessee to produce the relevant document failure to which directing them to reverse the Modvat 2 Credit can be treated as a Show Cause Notice as contemplated in Rule 57 I of C.Ex. Rules, 1944. (ii) Whether the show cause notice dated 20.04.1990 issued subsequent to the letter dated 12.3.1990 and 5.4.1990 can be treated to have issued within the prescribed time limit under sub-Rule (1) of Rule 57 I of the Central Excise Rules 1944.” In this case, the Tribunal held that the show cause notice issued on 20.4.1990 was beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Rule 57 I of the Central Excise Rule,1944. According to the applicant the communication dated 12.3.1990 and 5.4.1990 directing the assessee to produce relevant documents ought to be treated as show cause notices and in that view of the matter the show cause notice dated 20.4.1990 would be within time. 2. Copies of the communications dated 12.3.1990 and 5.4.1990 are not annexed to the application. The matter was adjourned to enable the Counsel to produce 3 the said communications. However, even today the learned Counsel for the applicant is unable to produce the said communications. In the absence of any material to show that the communications dated 12.3.1990 and 5.4.1990, were in fact in the form of show cause notices, no useful purpose would be served by calling for a statement of the case. Accordingly, the application is dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)