2017 (2) TMI 981 - HC - Central Excise

Natural justice - Mis-declaration of goods - Held that - once the assessee is given sufficient opportunity to remain present, to argue his case, either by himself or with the assistance of an Advocate, then, the Revenue would be justified, if the assessee is prolonging the matter and deliberately, to pass orders in his absence - The principles of natural justice are not codified - the quasi-judicial authorities should realise that they need not be friendly or liberal with the assessee and to such an extent as would give an opportunity to the assessee to complain that the SCN having been issued decades back, it cannot be adjudicated. The petitioners should not be denied the relief - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in adjudicating a Show Cause Notice issued in 1991.
2. Whether the delay in adjudication by the Revenue justifies quashing the Show Cause Notice.

Analysis:
1. The petitioners sought a declaration that the proceedings following a Show Cause Notice from 1991 be declared non est due to an unexplained delay. Despite the petitioners offering an explanation in 1992, the matter remained unresolved. The Revenue failed to pass any orders since 1997, even though the petitioner had submitted written submissions and further explanations. The petitioners feared a belated order and approached the court to prevent uncertainty and encourage prompt resolution of proceedings. The court noted the history of similar cases and emphasized the need for timely adjudication of such matters to maintain predictability and fairness.

2. The Revenue argued that the delay was due to the petitioner's lack of cooperation. However, the court highlighted the duty of the authorities to promptly adjudicate Show Cause Notices once issued. It emphasized that while reasonable opportunities must be granted to the assessee, excessive adjournments should be avoided to prevent unnecessary delays. The court clarified that the Revenue should not wait endlessly for the assessee to act, as there is no vested right to prolong proceedings. It stressed that orders can be passed in the absence of the assessee if deemed necessary, provided sufficient opportunities have been given. The court ruled in favor of the petitioners, considering the practical difficulties they faced in recalling past issues due to the extensive delay, and quashed the Show Cause Notice.

3. The judgment referenced previous decisions by the court, highlighting the consistent application of principles regarding delayed adjudication of Show Cause Notices. It underscored the importance of balancing the rights of the assessee with the duty of the Revenue to expedite proceedings fairly and efficiently. The ruling aimed to uphold the principles of natural justice while ensuring that legal proceedings are conducted in a timely and just manner to serve the interests of both parties involved.