2019 (8) TMI 1397 - HC - Central Excise

Inordinate delay in adjudication of SCN - delay of eleven years from issuance of show cause notice - SSI Exemption - clearance bearing brand name of other loan licensees - N/N. 8/2001, dated 1-3-2001, 8/2002, dated 1-3-2002 8/2003, dated 1-3-2003 - extended period of limitation - It is the case of the petitioner that three personal hearings on 17-4-2018, 2-5-2018 and 8-5-2018 were held without issuing notices as prescribed under Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - HELD THAT - Though the show cause notice came to be issued in the present case in the year 2006 and it remained dormant for pretty long years without any adjudication, even after retrieving the case from the Call Book in the year 2009 the adjudication into the case did not conclude till 24-5-2018, the petitioner cannot be blamed for non adjudication of the show cause notice as he had never requested to transfer it to the Call Book or he has never delayed any proceedings pending adjudication. In short, the petitioner is not responsible for the delay in adjudication at all. As such, delay in adjudication is not at all even explained by the Department. There shall not be any hanging sword, without any justifiable reasons on the petitioner to adjudicate the show cause notice at the whims of the Department. The Department has failed to put forth any justification or show any explanation for delay in adjudicating the show cause notice even after it had retrieved the case from the Call Book on 28-9-2009 till the passing of the order impugned in this petition. Issuance of notice as claimed in the affidavit-in-reply by respondent No. 2, though disputed by the petitioner, it is desirable that it is not probed further as the order impugned in this petition pursuant to the show cause notice is required to be quashed and set aside on the ground of delay in adjudication proceedings - Since the impugned order is quashed and set aside on the ground of delay in adjudication proceedings, the argument of alternative remedy raised by the respondent is rejected as the proceedings itself is vitiated for delay in adjudication proceedings. Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging Order-in-Original after long delay; Interpretation of SSI exemption for branded goods; Delay in adjudication process; Breach of principles of natural justice in issuing notices; Alternative remedy available.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the Order-in-Original issued after a significant delay following a show cause notice dated 14-8-2006. The issue revolved around the interpretation of SSI exemption for branded goods manufactured for loan licensees. The Department contended that the petitioner should clear branded goods without duty payment based on their rural area unit status. The petitioner denied the charges, citing a precedent where a similar show cause notice was dropped. The Department's appeal against this precedent was rejected by the Tribunal, emphasizing that demanding duty beyond the limitation period was unjustifiable.

The petitioner argued that the adjudicating authority's transfer of the case to the Call Book without notice was unreasonable. Subsequent delays and lack of communication regarding case transfers raised concerns about procedural fairness. The Department claimed to have issued notices for personal hearings, but the petitioner disputed this, highlighting a breach of natural justice principles. The Court noted the absence of proper explanations for delays in adjudication, emphasizing the need for timely resolution in line with legal precedents.

The Court found the delay in adjudication unjustified and arbitrary, leading to the quashing of the Order-in-Original and show cause notice. The petitioner was not held responsible for delays caused by the Department's inaction. The Court rejected the Department's argument regarding alternative remedies, as the delay itself invalidated the proceedings. The judgment concluded by setting aside the impugned order and show cause notice, emphasizing the importance of timely adjudication and procedural fairness in legal processes.