2017 (12) TMI 818 - HC - Central Excise

100% EOU - proceedings kept in abeyance - call book - petitioners had made duty free imports of raw materials on the condition that the finished product would be exported. According to the authority, the petitioners had made clearance of finished goods in DTA area in breach of the Government policies - Held that - the department issued the show cause notice to the petitioner on 22.8.2002. After the petitioners reply to the show cause notice dated 2.10.2012, no further hearing took place upto 21.9.2016 when the department activated the show cause notice proceedings. In the meantime the proceedings remained dormant. The reason for keeping the proceedings in abeyance or the reason for reactivation, had not been communicated to the petitioners. In the meantime, the unit closed down in the year 2006 when the competent authority activated the show cause notice proceedings. After a long passage of time, it would not be possible for them to muster necessary documents and materials to defend their position. The department had carried the matter in appeal before the Supreme Court. However, the SLP is confined to whether the circular dated 14.12.2015 issued by CBEC (pertaining to keeping the case in call book) is in conformity with the provisions contained in section 37B of the Central Excise Act. Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in reactivating show cause notice after several years.
2. Denial of natural justice due to prolonged delay in proceedings.
3. Breach of principle of natural justice.
4. Validity of keeping proceedings in call book without notice to petitioners.
5. Impact of unit closure on the proceedings.
6. Compliance with statutory provisions regarding time limits for adjudication.
7. Applicability of circular issued by CBEC regarding call book.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Delay in Reactivating Show Cause Notice
The petitions raised concern over the prolonged delay in reactivating the show cause notice after nearly 14 years without any communication to the petitioners. The petitioners argued that this delay resulted in a miscarriage of justice as they were unable to effectively defend themselves due to the passage of time.

Issue 2: Denial of Natural Justice
The petitioners contended that the extended delay in proceedings denied them the opportunity to gather necessary documents and materials to present their case adequately. This denial of natural justice was highlighted as a significant ground for challenging the impugned order.

Issue 3: Breach of Principle of Natural Justice
Drawing from previous judgments, the Court emphasized that the revival of proceedings after a long gap without disclosing reasons for the delay would be unlawful and arbitrary, thus vitiating the entire process. The breach of the principle of natural justice due to the prolonged delay was a crucial aspect in determining the validity of the proceedings.

Issue 4: Keeping Proceedings in Call Book
The Court scrutinized the practice of keeping proceedings in a call book without informing the petitioners, noting that such actions were contrary to statutory provisions mandating timely adjudication. The failure to communicate the status of the proceedings to the petitioners was deemed prejudicial and against the principles of natural justice.

Issue 5: Impact of Unit Closure
The closure of the unit was a significant factor considered by the Court, as it affected the ability of the petitioners to effectively respond to the show cause notice. The changed circumstances due to the unit closure were highlighted as a factor contributing to the denial of natural justice in the proceedings.

Issue 6: Compliance with Statutory Time Limits
The Court analyzed the statutory provisions regarding time limits for determining duty under the Central Excise Act, emphasizing the importance of adhering to prescribed timelines unless genuinely impractical. The Court underscored that the concept of a call book, as practiced by the CBEC, was contrary to statutory mandates and could lead to unjust delays in adjudication.

Issue 7: Circular Issued by CBEC
The validity of the circular issued by the CBEC regarding keeping cases in a call book was questioned, with the Supreme Court being approached to determine its conformity with the provisions of the Central Excise Act. The Court's analysis of the circular's impact on the proceedings added a layer of complexity to the overall judgment.

In conclusion, the petitions were allowed, and the impugned orders-in-original were quashed, emphasizing the importance of upholding principles of natural justice and timely adjudication in legal proceedings.