2018 (8) TMI 434 - SC - Customs

Refund of deposits made by respondents - Revenue has not proceeded with the adjudication of the said show cause notices - Held that - When these matters are pending for the last almost 10 years and no adjudication has taken place, it may not be appropriate to interfere with the directions of the High Court to refund the amount to the respondents - Insofar as adjudication of the show cause notices is concerned, it is left open to the appellant to proceed with the same as per the advise of the competent authority - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of show cause notices issued by Proper Officers.
2. Interpretation of Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Refund of duty amounts deposited by exporters.
4. Adjudication of pending show cause notices.
5. Transfer petition challenging notifications and circulars.

Analysis:
1. The Supreme Court addressed the issue of the validity of show cause notices issued by Proper Officers to exporters accused of avoiding payment of export duty. The Court noted an amendment in Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962, validating such notices. However, a conflicting interpretation arose from a Delhi High Court judgment, leading to uncertainty about the retrospective effect of the amendment. The Revenue had not proceeded with adjudication due to Circular(s) from the C.B.D.T., resulting in a lack of resolution in the pending cases.

2. Regarding the interpretation of Section 28 of the Customs Act, the Court highlighted the conflicting views between the Revenue and the Delhi High Court. The Revenue contended that the amendment validated all earlier notices, while the High Court held that it operated prospectively, not validating past notices. The Revenue's special leave petition against the Delhi High Court's decision was pending, with an interim stay granted on the judgment.

3. The Court addressed the issue of refunding duty amounts deposited by the exporters, subject to furnishing adequate security. In cases where the High Court directed refunds due to lack of voluntary deposits and show cause notices, the Court upheld the refunds, emphasizing the prolonged pendency of the matters for almost a decade without adjudication.

4. The Court left the decision on adjudicating the pending show cause notices to the competent authority, allowing the appellant to proceed as advised. Noting the extended delay in resolving the cases, the Court emphasized the importance of advancing the adjudication process in the interest of justice and legal clarity.

5. In a transfer petition challenging notifications and circulars related to the issue, the Court dismissed the petition after finding that the subject matter differed from the Special Leave Petitions under consideration. The Court clarified that the transfer petition did not align with the scope of the notifications and circulars challenge in the ongoing cases, leading to its dismissal.