2022 (8) TMI 642 - SC - Central Excise

Validity and jurisdiction to adjudicate the subsequent SCN - Order-in-Original passed in proceedings pursuant to the show cause notice are ordered to be revived and to be transferred to the Additional Director General, Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence, Delhi Zonal Unit, New Delhi for decision with the proceedings initiated pursuant to the first show cause notice - HELD THAT - Considering the fact that both the show cause notices - one dated 1-3-2016 issued by the Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence, Delhi Zonal Unit and the subsequent show cause notice dated 23-10-2017 issued by the Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax Commissionerate, Alwar were on the same subject - matter, the High Court is justified in passing the impugned judgment and order and directing that both the notices to be adjudicated and heard together by one authority. There are no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court - it is directed that, now both the show cause notices one dated 1-3-2016 and the subsequent show cause notice dated 23-10-2017 be adjudicated by only one authority, namely, the Additional Director General, Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence, Delhi Zonal Unit, New Delhi and/or the equivalent authority, to be decided and disposed of within a period of six months from today. SLP disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
High Court setting aside Order-in-Original, adjudication of show cause notices together by one authority, interference with High Court's judgment, direction for adjudication by one authority within six months, cooperation of respondents for adjudication, dismissal of Special Leave Petition, disposal of pending applications.

Analysis:
The Supreme Court addressed the issue of the High Court setting aside the Order-in-Original and directing the revival and transfer of proceedings related to two show cause notices issued on the same subject matter. The Court acknowledged that both show cause notices, one from 2016 by the Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence and another from 2017 by the Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax, were interconnected. The Court found the High Court's decision to have both notices adjudicated together by one authority to be justified. Consequently, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court's judgment in this regard.

Moreover, the Supreme Court emphasized the need for the adjudication of both show cause notices by a single authority, namely the Additional Director General of Central Excise Intelligence, within a specified timeframe. The Court directed that the adjudication process must be completed within six months from the date of the judgment. The respondents were instructed to cooperate with the designated authority for the joint adjudication of the two show cause notices within the stipulated timeframe.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition and disposed of any pending applications in the matter. The judgment provided a clear directive for the efficient and consolidated adjudication of the interconnected show cause notices by a designated authority within a specified timeframe, emphasizing the importance of cooperation from the respondents in the process.