2022 (11) TMI 1530 - HC - Central Excise

Challenge to SCN - precise case projected on behalf of the petitioners is that the show cause notices in question were initially adjudicated upon - HELD THAT - The dentical issue came to be considered by Coordinate Bench of this Court in a bunch of writ petitions M/s Shree Baba Exports through proprietor Ms. Jyotsna Agarwal vs. Commissioner, GST Central Excise, Commissionerate, Chandigarh and another 2022 (3) TMI 749 - PUNJAB HARYANA HIGH COURT . The Coordinate Bench has taken notice of the mandate under Section 11 Clause A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and have taken a view that the prescribed time limit ought to be followed. The impugned show cause notices stands quashed - petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Pre-ponment of the date of hearing in the main petition.
2. Challenge to show cause notices dated 03.07.2009, 01.06.2010, and 27.04.2010.
3. Adjudication delay despite remand for fresh adjudication.
4. Compliance with time limits under Section 11-A(11) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
5. Consideration of similar issues by a Coordinate Bench.
6. Affirmation of judgment by the Apex Court.

Analysis:
1. The judgment addressed an application seeking pre-ponment of the hearing date in the main petition. The court pre-poned the date based on no objection from the opposing counsel, and the main petition was taken up on the same day.

2. The main petition challenged show cause notices issued in 2009 and 2010. The petitioners argued that despite a remand for fresh adjudication in 2013, there was a significant delay of almost nine years without any adjudication taking place, a fact not disputed by the respondents' counsel.

3. The court considered a similar issue previously dealt with by a Coordinate Bench regarding the time limits prescribed under Section 11-A(11) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Coordinate Bench emphasized the mandatory nature of the time limit and held that extensions should not be granted without valid reasons.

4. Referring to the judgment in a related case, the court highlighted the importance of adhering to prescribed time limits for adjudication. The court quashed the show cause notices issued more than 11 years ago, following the precedent set in the previous case.

5. The judgment also noted that the decision was affirmed by the Apex Court, further solidifying the position taken by the court in quashing the impugned show cause notices. The court allowed the instant petition and disposed of any pending miscellaneous applications.

6. In conclusion, the judgment underscored the significance of timely adjudication and compliance with statutory time limits, ultimately leading to the quashing of the show cause notices in question.