2019 (7) TMI 1409 - HC - Central Excise

Validity of adjudication of case after 13 years of Issue of Show Cause Notice (SCN) - 100% EOU - The writ-applicants pointed out to the appellate authority that the revival of the proceedings after 13 years could be termed as impermissible in law. According to Mr. Dave, for no fault on the part of the writ-applicants, the department kept the sword hanging on their neck for a period of 13 years. HELD THAT - The explanation offered by the respondents for delay is not convincing. - The impugned order passed by the Commissioner, GST and Central Excise (Appeals), Vadodara affirming the order passed by the Joint Commissioner, CGST, Bharuch dated 27/12/2017 is hereby quashed and set aside - application allowed.

Issues Involved:
1. Delay in adjudication of the show cause notice.
2. Violation of principles of natural justice.
3. Legality of reviving proceedings after a long delay.
4. Jurisdiction and authority of the appellate authority.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Delay in Adjudication of the Show Cause Notice:
The petitioner received a show cause notice on 28.06.2005, proposing to recover differential excise duty and customs duty. The petitioner filed a reply on 21.11.2005, but no further action was taken for nearly 13 years. The adjudication proceedings were revived in November 2017, leading to the passing of an adjudication order on 27.12.2017. The petitioner argued that the revival of proceedings after such a long delay was impermissible and caused serious prejudice. The court noted that the delay in adjudication was not justified, and the explanation provided by the respondents for the delay was not convincing. The court referred to the decision in M/s. Siddhi Vinayak Syntex Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI, which held that such delays vitiate the proceedings.

2. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The petitioner contended that the revival of adjudication proceedings after 13 years violated the principles of natural justice. The appellate authority ignored the petitioner's submissions regarding the delay and the judgments supporting their case. The court found that the delay caused serious prejudice to the petitioner, as relevant documents and witnesses were no longer available. The court emphasized that the principles of natural justice were violated due to the unexplained delay and the lack of a proper hearing.

3. Legality of Reviving Proceedings After a Long Delay:
The court analyzed whether the respondents were justified in reviving the proceedings after a 13-year delay. The court referred to various judgments, including those of the Bombay High Court and Delhi High Court, which held that long delays in adjudication without proper explanation are unlawful and arbitrary. The court concluded that the revival of proceedings after such a long delay was without jurisdiction and contrary to the law laid down by the courts.

4. Jurisdiction and Authority of the Appellate Authority:
The court examined whether the appellate authority had the jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. The court found that the appellate authority failed to consider the petitioner's submissions regarding the delay and the relevant judgments. The court held that the appellate authority acted without jurisdiction by ignoring the principles of natural justice and the law laid down by the courts. The court quashed the impugned order, affirming that the appellate authority's decision was without jurisdiction and violated the principles of natural justice.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the writ application, quashing the impugned order passed by the Commissioner, GST and Central Excise (Appeals), Vadodara, and the order passed by the Joint Commissioner, CGST, Bharuch. The court emphasized that the revival of proceedings after a long delay without proper explanation was impermissible and violated the principles of natural justice. The court made the rule absolute to the extent of setting aside the impugned orders.

← Previous Next →