9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (3) TMI 1162 - HC - Central ExciseValidity of SCN - gross delay in adjudicating the show cause notices - whether SCN is void in view of non-adjudication after a lapse of nearly 10 years from the date of issuance of first show cause notice? - HELD THAT - This Court in case of PARLE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 2020 (11) TMI 842 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT after considering the identical facts has held that that a show cause notice issued a decade back should not be allowed to be adjudicated upon by the revenue merely because there is no period of limitation prescribed in the statute to complete such proceedings. Larger public interest requires that revenue should adjudicate the show-cause notice expeditiously and within a reasonable period. It is held that keeping the show-cause notice in the dormant list or the call book, such a plea cannot be allowed or condoned by the writ court to justify inordinate delay at the hands of the revenue. Since the respondents were totally responsible for gross delay in adjudicating the show cause notices issued by the respondents causing prejudice and hardship to the petitioner and have transferred the show cause notices to call book and kept in abeyance without communication to the petitioner for more than 7 to 11 years, the respondents cannot be allowed to raise alternate remedy at this stage. Petition disposed off.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the impugned Show Cause Notices due to non-adjudication after a lapse of nearly 10 years. 2. Legality of transferring the Show Cause Notices to the call book without informing the petitioner. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Impugned Show Cause Notices: The petitioner contested the validity of five Show Cause Notices issued between 2011 and 2016, arguing that they were void and bad-in-law due to non-adjudication for nearly a decade. The petitioner had filed detailed replies to these notices, refuting all allegations. The petitioner believed that the submissions had been accepted due to the lack of further communication from the respondents. The court noted that the respondents did not fix any hearing dates or communicate the reasons for the delay. The court emphasized that the revenue should adjudicate show cause notices expeditiously and within a reasonable period, referencing the judgments in *Parle International Ltd. vs. Union of India* and *Sushitex Exports India Ltd. vs. Union of India*. The court concluded that the respondents' failure to adjudicate the notices within a reasonable period caused prejudice and hardship to the petitioner, thereby invalidating the show cause notices. 2. Legality of Transferring the Show Cause Notices to the Call Book: The respondents argued that the show cause notices were transferred to the call book in accordance with various circulars issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs. These circulars allowed for the transfer of cases to the call book under specific conditions, such as pending appeals or injunctions. The petitioner was not informed about this transfer until 2021, almost a decade after the first show cause notice was issued. The court found that the respondents' failure to communicate the transfer to the call book was unjustified. The court referenced the *Parle International Ltd.* case, which held that keeping show cause notices in a dormant list or call book without timely adjudication was unacceptable. The court also noted that the respondents' reliance on the judgment in *Commissioner of S.T., Mumbai-VII vs. M/s. Greenwich Meridian Logistics (I) Pvt. Ltd.* was misplaced, as the facts of the present case were distinguishable. The court concluded that the respondents' actions were contrary to the principles of law and could not proceed with the show cause notices at such a belated stage. Conclusion: The court allowed the writ petition, quashing the impugned show cause notices and ruling in favor of the petitioner. The court emphasized the need for timely adjudication of show cause notices and criticized the respondents for their prolonged delay and lack of communication. The court's decision was guided by the principles established in previous judgments, ensuring that the respondents' actions did not cause undue hardship to the petitioner. The rule was made absolute with no order as to costs, and parties were instructed to act on the authenticated copy of the order.
|
