2023 (9) TMI 15 - HC - Central Excise

Refund of amount paid under protest - SCN not adjudicated for more than 25 years - HELD THAT - The decision of the Division Bench of this Court in PREMIER LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE PREMIER AUTOMOBILES LTD.) , MAITREYA V. DOSHI VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA, THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE 2017 (2) TMI 981 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT wherein in similar circumstances a Division Bench of this Court, being confronted with a similar issue pertaining to the belated adjudication of a show cause notice issued 25 years back, observed that failure of the adjudicating authority to adjudicate upon the same, for about 25 years, itself would be illegal, and that the authorities could not have been liberal in granting adjournment and not adjudicating the show cause notice for such a long lapse of time. The Respondents are directed to refund to the Petitioner INR 10,69,666/- deposited by the Petitioner under protest during the course of the investigation with interest at the rate 12 per cent per annum from the date of deposit till the date of actual refund - petition allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
- Delay in adjudication of a show cause notice issued 25 years back.
- Request for quashing and setting aside the show cause notice.
- Request for refund of INR 10,69,666 deposited under protest during the investigation.

Summary:
The High Court of Bombay heard a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution concerning the quashing of a show cause notice issued by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Mumbai-III, approximately 25 years ago. The petitioner sought the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to review the records and quash the impugned notice, along with a refund of the deposited amount with interest. The petitioner argued that due to the prolonged delay in adjudication, the notice should be set aside. The respondent, unable to locate the case papers, acknowledged the difficulty in proceeding with the adjudication. Citing various legal precedents, including ATA Freight Line (I) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors., the court agreed with the petitioner's stance. Referring to the decision in Premier Ltd. Vs. Union of India, the court emphasized that the failure to adjudicate the notice for such an extended period was illegal. Consequently, the court allowed the petition, quashed the show cause notice, and directed the respondents to refund the deposited amount with interest, in line with the petitioner's requests. The court made the rule absolute in favor of the petitioner, without imposing any costs.