1996 (10) TMI 172 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved: Delay in adjudication proceedings after the issue of show cause notice.

The judgment dealt with the issue of whether an adjudication order made after a significant delay following the issue of a show cause notice would be permissible. The appellant had been served with a demand-cum-show cause notice in 1981, but the adjudication order confirming the demand was made in 1990, nearly nine years later.

The appellants contended that the delay in conducting the adjudication proceedings had hindered their ability to properly represent their case. They had requested relevant documents from the department, which were crucial for their defense, but did not receive a response. The appellants argued that without access to these records, they were unable to refute the allegations of suppression of facts and misdeclaration.

The Departmental Representative (D.R.) defending the impugned order argued that there was no specific time limit prescribed in the law for conducting adjudication proceedings after the issuance of a show cause notice. Therefore, the delay of nearly ten years in this case was not unlawful.

The Tribunal considered the arguments from both sides and reviewed the records. It emphasized the principle that administrative discretion must be exercised fairly and reasonably, ensuring citizens' right to justice is not compromised. While there was no statutory time limit specified, the exercise of such powers should occur within a reasonable timeframe. The Tribunal cited precedents, including a Bombay High Court decision, to support the position that significant delays in adjudication proceedings could deprive parties of a fair opportunity to present their case effectively.

Based on the discussions and legal precedents, the Tribunal found merit in the appellant's contentions. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the impugned adjudication order was set aside.