9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (6) TMI 748 - HC - Central ExciseValidity of respective show cause notices (SCN) of the year 1994 to 1997 and the respective notices of personal hearing issued in the year 2022, i.e., after a lapse of about 27 to 29 years - Manufacture - Marketability - Intermediate goods - HELD THAT - The issue involved in these cases is squarely covered by decision in the case of TATA STEEL LTD. (GROWTH SHOP) , FORMERLY TATA IRON AND STEEL COMPANY LTD (GROWTH SHOP) , JAMSHEDPUR VERSUS UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL GST AND CENTRAL EXCISE, JAMSHEDPUR, ASSISTANT COLLECTOR, CENTRAL EXCISE DIVISION 1, JAMSHEDPUR, SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL EXCISE, ADITYAPUR, RANGE III, SUPERINTENDENT (ADJUDICATION) , CENTRAL GST AND CENTRAL EXCISE, JAMSHEDPUR 2023 (2) TMI 893 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT where it was held that The respondents had kept the impugned show cause notice and ten other SCNs as indicated in the chart above in the call book on the ground that the matter was sub-judice. However, from the pleadings on record and also from the averments made in the counter affidavit, it appears that none of the conditions as enumerated in the CBIC circular / guidelines relied upon by the respondents and also by the petitioner stood satisfied for transferring the matter to the call book. After going through the aforesaid judgment, it clearly transpires that in paragraph No. 9, the show cause notices involved in all these writ applications have been mentioned in tabular form and this Court has taken note of the pendency of show cause notices and/or the writ petition pending for adjudication. It further transpires that was disposed of on 14.02.2023 in presence of the parties and in the open Court but for the reason best known to the respondent-Department just after couple of days on 17.02.2023, they passed the common order in original (OIO) affirming the demand as made in the 10 show cause notices. This action of the Respondent Commissioner is against the settled principles of law which demands that the Revenue Officers are bound by the decisions of the appellate authorities and that the principle of judicial discipline requires that the orders of the higher appellate authorities are followed unreservedly by the subordinate authorities. As a matter of fact, the Commissioner has not acted in a bonafide manner and has attempted to make the present writ petitions infructuous. When the show cause notices were kept pending for 26 -27 years; there was no reason to proceed with such great speed in passing the impugned order. In this regard reference may be made to the case of PARLE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 2020 (11) TMI 842 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT wherein the Hon ble Court has held we have no hesitation to hold that respondents were not justified in commencing adjudication proceeding 13 years after issuance of the show-cause notices dated 01.06.2006 and 28.11.2006. Such adjudication proceeding is therefore, held to be invalid. In the present case, since the issue did attain finality in 2004 itself, there was absolutely no justification in keeping the show cause notices pending thereafter. The file notings show that though the Commissioner was apprised in 2007 that the issue had attained a finality, still a decision was taken by him on 26.10.2007 to keep the cases in the call book. Mere pendency of another matter before the Tribunal when the issue had attained a finality by the Hon ble Apex Court, cannot be a reason to keep the SCN in the call book. A lapse of 18 years from 2004 to 2022 remains unexplained. Neither is there an explanation for any change of circumstances for taking out the notices from the call book in November 2022. In such circumstances, the SCN and the OIO cannot be countenanced. Application allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Inordinate delay in adjudication of show cause notices. 2. Validity of transferring cases to the call book. 3. Judicial propriety and discipline in the context of pending writ applications. 4. Compliance with procedural fairness and natural justice. Summary: Inordinate Delay in Adjudication of Show Cause Notices: The petitioners challenged the show cause notices (SCNs) issued between 1994 and 1997, and the subsequent personal hearing notices issued in 2022 after a lapse of about 27 to 29 years. The court noted the inordinate delay and quashed the SCNs and personal hearing notices, referencing a similar case (W.P.(T) No. 308 of 2023) where a 29-year delay was found contrary to Section 11A(11) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, leading to unreasonable and arbitrary results. Validity of Transferring Cases to the Call Book: The court examined the procedural aspects of transferring cases to the call book, referencing CBIC circulars and guidelines. It found that none of the conditions for transferring the cases to the call book were satisfied. The court highlighted the lack of justification for keeping the SCNs pending for 18 years after the issue had attained finality in 2004. Judicial Propriety and Discipline: The court criticized the respondent-Commissioner for passing the common Order in Original (OIO) just three days after the court's decision in W.P.(T) No. 308 of 2023, which quashed a similar SCN. The court emphasized that judicial propriety and discipline required the respondents to await the adjudication of the present writ applications, citing the case of Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v. Excise & Taxation Officer. Compliance with Procedural Fairness and Natural Justice: The court underscored the importance of procedural fairness and natural justice, noting that the respondents' actions were unreasonable and violated these principles. The court referenced several judgments, including Eastern Agencies Aromatics Private Limited v. Union of India and GPI Textiles Limited v. Union of India, to support its stance on the necessity of timely adjudication and the adverse impact of undue delays on the petitioners. Conclusion: The court quashed the respective SCNs, notices of personal hearing, and the common Order in Original dated 17.02.2023. The writ applications were allowed, emphasizing the need for adherence to judicial propriety, procedural fairness, and timely adjudication in tax matters.
|
