(1.) THE petitioner has challenged a show cause notice dated 20.7.2012 (Annexure P -10) and an order dated 12.12.2014 (Annexure P -13) passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise.
(2.) IN the facts and circumstances of this case, we see no reason to interfere either with the show cause notice or with the order of the Commissioner in this writ petition. The petitioner has already rightly availed the alternate remedy under the Act by replying to the show cause notice on 22.08.2012 (Annexure P -11) before the Commissioner. The petitioner has an alternate remedy of filing an appeal against the order of the Commissioner under Section 35 -B of the Finance Act, 1994 before the Tribunal. We would not have interfered even if the show cause notice had been challenged at the outset. Considering the facts of this case, we would, in any event, have left the petitioner to avail the alternate remedy of challenging the show cause notice before the Commissioner.
(3.) THE petitioner entered into a concession contract dated 28.08.2008 with "M/s. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation" (DMRC) for "design, installation, commissioning, operation and maintenance of Airport Metro Express Line, New Delhi -Indira Gandhi International Airport -Dwarka Sector 21". The design and construction of basic civil structure was to be done by DMRC and made available to the petitioner progressively for design, supply, installation, commissioning and operation of system and related works. Considering the nature and scope of the work, it is understandably a detailed, lengthy and an involved agreement. It is not necessary to refer to the agreement in detail. It is sufficient to note that the source of revenue for the petitioner consisted of fare revenue and non -fare revenue.