9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (3) TMI 790 - AT - CustomsAdjudication of the Show Cause Notice issued on 28.09.2004 which was concluded on 22.09.2023 - Jurisdiction of Additional Director General of DRI to issue the SCN - delay in adjudication constitutes a violation of the principles of natural justice or not - HELD THAT - The facts which are not in dispute are that imports took place during the period July 2002 to November 2002 and the Show Cause Notice has been issued on 28.09.2004 and the adjudication took place on 22.09.2023. The said adjudication is bad in law as held by this Tribunal which has examined the issue of adjudication in reasonable time in the case of Kopertek Metals Pvt. Ltd. and Others 2024 (12) TMI 269 - CESTAT NEW DELHI observing that the adjudication has taken place beyond the period stipulated in sub-section (11) of section 11A of the Central Excise Act and there is no plausible explanation as to why it was not possible for the Adjudicating Authority to complete the adjudication process within the stipulated time. The Show Cause Notice has been adjudicated with inordinate delay. In that circumstances the proceedings against the appellants are not sustainable. Appeal allowed.
ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal issues considered in this judgment include:
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS 1. Validity of Adjudication Due to Delay Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Tribunal referenced prior decisions, including the case of Kopertek Metals Pvt. Ltd., where it was determined that adjudication beyond the stipulated period without a plausible explanation is invalid. The Tribunal also considered the decision of the Bombay High Court in Rachana Garments Pvt. Ltd., which emphasized that undue delay in adjudication contravenes procedural fairness and violates principles of natural justice. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal found that the adjudication process, which took nearly 19 years, was unreasonable and unsupported by any justification from the adjudicating authority. This delay was deemed to violate the principles of natural justice, as it failed to provide a timely resolution to the appellant. Key evidence and findings: The Tribunal noted the timeline of events: imports occurred between July and November 2002, the Show Cause Notice was issued in 2004, and adjudication was not completed until 2023. The absence of any explanation for this delay was critical to the Tribunal's decision. Application of law to facts: By applying the principles established in previous cases, the Tribunal concluded that the delay rendered the adjudication process invalid, as it did not comply with the requirement for timely adjudication. 2. Jurisdiction of the Additional Director General of DRI Relevant legal framework and precedents: The appellant challenged the jurisdiction of the Additional Director General of DRI to issue the Show Cause Notice. However, the Tribunal did not provide an extensive analysis on this point, focusing instead on the delay issue. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal did not explicitly address the jurisdictional issue in detail, as the decision was primarily based on the delay in adjudication. 3. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Tribunal cited the decision in Rachana Garments Pvt. Ltd., which underscored that procedural fairness is compromised when adjudication is excessively delayed. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal agreed with the precedent that prolonged delays in adjudication violate natural justice principles, as they prevent parties from a fair and timely hearing. Key evidence and findings: The Tribunal found that the delay in adjudication, without any communication to the appellant regarding the status of the Show Cause Notice, was procedurally unfair. Application of law to facts: The Tribunal applied the principle that undue delay in adjudication is inherently unfair and concluded that the proceedings were unsustainable. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Tribunal's significant holdings include:
Verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: "It is evident that in all the 209 cases, the adjudication has taken place beyond the period stipulated... and there is no plausible explanation as to why it was not possible for the Adjudicating Authority to complete the adjudication process within the stipulated time." "Such delayed adjudication wholly attributable to the revenue would be in contravention of procedural fairness and thus violative of the principles of natural justice." Core principles established:
Final determinations on each issue:
|
