2025 (1) TMI 1532 - HC - Customs

Violation of principles of natural justice - Delay of 11 years in adjudication of show cause notices - disallowance of drawback duty availed - HELD THAT - This Court in the case of Siddhi Vinayak Syntex Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India 2017 (3) TMI 1534 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT held that a matter cannot be revived after 17 years when there is no appropriate reason for the delay and hence the Show Cause Notice was quashed. The Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of 2010 (1) TMI 508 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT held that in absence for reason of delay in adjudication the re-opening of the matter after such a lapse cannot be allowed as it will cause serious detriment and prejudice to the petitioner. The Hon ble Orissa High Court in the case of M/s. Maxcare Laboratories Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner CGST Central Excise Customs Bhubaneswar and others 2021 (7) TMI 28 - ORISSA HIGH COURT held that revival of the proceedings after an inordinate delay is contrary to the concept of speedy disposal of SCN when proper reason for the delay is not provided. Conclusion - i) The show cause notices and orders quashed due to unjustified delays in adjudication and revival of proceedings aligning with the principles established in prior cases. ii) The duty drawback claimed by the petitioners is valid and not in breach of the rules as the drawback was related only to customs duty. Petition allowed.

2025 (3) TMI 1326 - HC

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The primary legal issues considered in this judgment include:

Whether the adjudication of show cause notices after a significant delay of 11 years is legally permissible and consistent with principles of natural justice.
Whether the revival of proceedings by reinstating Orders-in-Original after a long gap of 7-8 years, subsequent to appellate orders being quashed, is valid.
Whether the petitioners are entitled to the duty drawback claimed, and if the non-issuance of ARE-2 forms constitutes a breach of the Central Excise Rules.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Delay in Adjudication and Revival of Proceedings:

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Court referenced several precedents where delays in adjudication were found to be contrary to the principles of natural justice. Notable cases include Siddhi Vinayak Syntex Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, Shirish Harshavadan Shah v. Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate, Mumbai, and R.M. Malhotra v. Enforcement Directorate. These cases emphasized that significant delays without adequate explanation render proceedings unlawful.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court held that the delay in adjudication and revival of proceedings without justified reasons violates principles of natural justice, causing prejudice to the petitioners. The Court found no compelling reasons provided by the respondents for the delay.
Key Evidence and Findings: The show cause notices and orders were issued and adjudicated after a delay of more than 11 years. The revival of proceedings occurred after gaps of 7-8 years, without adequate justification.
Application of Law to Facts: The Court applied the principles from the cited precedents to the facts, determining that the delays were unjustified and prejudicial.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The respondents did not effectively counter the arguments regarding the delay and its impact, failing to provide substantial reasons for the prolonged adjudication and revival of proceedings.
Conclusions: The Court concluded that both the delay in adjudication and the revival of proceedings were unlawful and set aside the related orders and notices.

Entitlement to Duty Drawback and ARE-2 Forms:

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The case of M/s. Dewas Soya Ltd. v. Union of India was pivotal, where it was held that the duty drawback rate of 1% pertains only to customs duty and not central excise, thus not resulting in double benefits.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court agreed with the precedent that the non-issuance of ARE-2 forms did not constitute a breach of the rules, as the duty drawback related only to customs duty.
Key Evidence and Findings: The petitioners did not issue ARE-2 forms but claimed duty drawbacks at a rate applicable only to customs duty, not central excise.
Application of Law to Facts: The Court found that the petitioners did not receive double benefits, as the duty drawback was limited to customs duty.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The respondents failed to demonstrate any intention of wrongdoing or double benefit by the petitioners.
Conclusions: The Court held that the petitioners were entitled to the duty drawback claimed, and the non-issuance of ARE-2 forms was not a breach of the rules.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Court quashed the show cause notices and orders due to unjustified delays in adjudication and revival of proceedings, aligning with the principles established in prior cases.
The Court confirmed that the duty drawback claimed by the petitioners was valid and not in breach of the rules, as the drawback was related only to customs duty.
Core Principle Established: Delays in adjudication and revival of proceedings must be justified to comply with principles of natural justice. Duty drawbacks related solely to customs duty do not constitute a breach if ARE-2 forms are not issued.
Final Determinations: The show cause notices and related orders were set aside, and the petitioners were deemed entitled to the duty drawback without any breach of the rules.

← Previous Next →