2024 (2) TMI 1323 - HC - Customs

Jurisdiction - Power of designated officer of DRI to issue SCN - Challenging the legality of Show Cause Notice issued - HELD THAT - We are of the opinion that the Petitioner needs to canvass such legal position as asserted in the present proceedings before the adjudicating officer, who, as fairly pointed out on behalf of the Respondents, would certainly take into consideration all such contentions, including the issues on the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Canon India Pvt. Ltd. 2021 (3) TMI 384 - SUPREME COURT and pass appropriate orders on the show cause notice. The Petition is accordingly disposed of directing the Respondents to adjudicate Show Cause Notice dated 6th February 2020 as expeditiously as possible, and, in any event, within a period of 6 months from today. As the Show Cause Notice is issued about 4 years back, there cannot be any further delay in the adjudication of the same. All contentions of the Petitioners are expressly kept open for agitation in the adjudication of the Show Cause Notice - Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

Summary

Issues:
The judgment involves the jurisdiction of the Respondent to issue a Show Cause Notice under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962, and the legality of the same.

Jurisdiction of Respondent to Issue Show Cause Notice:
The Petitioners contended that the Respondent did not have the authority to issue the Show Cause Notice under Section 28(4) of the Act. They argued that the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Canon India Private Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs supports their position. The Petitioners sought relief from the Court, requesting a writ declaring the Show Cause Notice as without jurisdiction. The Respondent's Counsel acknowledged that the challenge raised by the Petitioners could be considered by the adjudicating officer. However, he suggested that the adjudication should proceed based on a previous judgment by the Court in Laxmi Organic Industries Ltd. case.

Legal Position and Adjudication Process:
The Court, after hearing arguments from both sides, decided that the adjudication of the Show Cause Notice should move forward. They noted that the Notice was issued just before the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic, which caused delays in the proceedings. The Court emphasized that the decision of the Supreme Court in the Canon India Pvt. Ltd. case is binding and must be considered by the adjudicating officer. The Petitioners were advised to raise their plea based on this decision during the adjudication process. The Court directed the Respondents to adjudicate the Show Cause Notice expeditiously within six months, keeping all contentions of the Petitioners open for further discussion.

Disposition and Conclusion:
The Court disposed of the Petition in the mentioned terms, emphasizing the need for prompt adjudication due to the significant delay since the issuance of the Show Cause Notice. No costs were awarded in the case. The judgment highlighted the importance of following legal precedents and ensuring a fair adjudication process in line with the law of the land.

This summary provides a detailed overview of the issues, legal arguments, and the Court's decision in the judgment delivered by the Bombay High Court.