2021 (8) TMI 888 - HC - Central Excise

Delay in proceeding with SCN - SCN was issued in 2006 - Order in Writ petition was passed in 2010 - Reply to SCN was filed in 2010 - A corrigendum was issued in 2016, PH was fixed and extensive reply was filed in 2017 - matter was kept pending in the call book as a policy decision - HELD THAT - It was thus seen that inordinate delay in proceeding with the earlier show cause notice despite the justification for keeping them in the Call Book coming to an end with the decision of the Larger Bench decided on 29th March, 2011. Nevertheless since the Petitioner s reply to the hearing notice filed by Petitioner on 9th February, 2017 is yet to be considered, the Court directs that the reply of the Petitioner will be considered on its merit, the Petitioner heard and the hearing date will be intimated to the Petitioner at least 10 days in advance and a reasoned order passed by the Authorized Adjudication Officer not later than 6th December, 2021. Application disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in proceeding with show cause notices
2. Jurisdiction of authorities to continue proceedings despite pending writ petition

Analysis:

1. The case involved a second round of litigation regarding show cause notices issued to the Petitioner by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax. Initially challenged through a writ petition, an interim order was passed in November 2006. The Court directed the Petitioner to file a show cause before the authorities, enclosing relevant documents and judgments in support of their defense. Despite subsequent developments, including a corrigendum and a notice of personal hearing, the Petitioner questioned the jurisdiction of the authorities to continue the proceedings, leading to the filing of the present writ petition.

2. The Court noted the inordinate delay in proceeding with the earlier show cause notices, despite a policy decision to adjudicate them and the justification for keeping them in the Call Book coming to an end with a decision by the Larger Bench in 2011. The Court directed that the Petitioner's reply be considered on its merit, with a hearing date to be intimated in advance. The Authorized Adjudication Officer was instructed to pass a reasoned order by a specified date, with communication to the Petitioner by a certain deadline. The Petitioner was granted the right to seek appropriate remedies if aggrieved by the order, and no coercive steps were to be taken against the Petitioner until the communication of the order. The Court's order disposed of both the present writ petition and the pending one from 2006.