9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 387X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... records pertaining to the show cause notice and after considering the same quashing and/or setting aside the same. (b) For a writ of mandamus, or a writ direction or order in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ direction or order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directing the Respondents to: (i) forthwith with law and/or cancel the show cause notice qua both the Petitioners; and (ii) Forthwith return to the Petitioners the amount of Rs. 2,07,57,074/- crores deposited under protest during investigation together with interest in accordance with law." 2. Since the earlier order has been complied with and an affidavit in reply has been filed, so also the petitioners proceeding on the basis of denials that we d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... scose blended fabrics. It was alleged that the second petitioner in collusion with Ashok Pokharkar of M/s.Amol Shipping Agency furnished copies showing incorrect/manipulated or false information regarding quantities, weight, composition of export goods. Thus, they wrongfully availed of the benefits of the licences by claiming fulfillment of export obligation. They secured a bond waiver and further obtained endorsement in respect of 33 advance licences making them freely transferable. Since these advance licenses were sold to various parties who imported goods from several countries without payment of duty, there was a loss caused to the exchequer and that is why a show cause notice was issued demanding a sum of Rs. 2,83,59,851/- and to be a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat order we have indicated to the respondents as to why an explanation should not be demanded by the Court from them for having kept the matter pending for adjudication for 17 long years. The second respondent was also called upon to inform the Court as to why such proceedings are kept pending and if there are any more complaints of this nature, then, remedial and corrective steps should also be indicated. 7. An affidavit has been filed of Assistant Commissioner of Customs and who is incharge of the Preventive Section. He has deposed on behalf of the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive). Mr.Jetly, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue submits that this is the adjudicating Authority and this affidavit indicates how this adjudi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en satisfactorily explained. 9. However, Mr.Shroff, learned Senior Advocate brings to our notice the two decisions rendered by two Division Benches of this Court, one in the case of "Shirish Harshavadan Shah Vs. Deputy Director, E.D., Mumbai, (2010 (254)E.L.T. 259 (Bom.))". The second decision is also of the same Division Bench rendered in the case "Cambata Industries Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Additional Director of Enforcement, Mumbai, (2010 (254) E.L.T. 269 (Bom.)) ". 10. In the first decision which we have perused with the assistance of Mr.Shroff, the factual position was that the department / Revenue was seeking to adjudicate and decide the show cause notice which came to be issued to the petitioner therein in the month of January, 2004. The show ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be the reasonable period would depend upon the facts of each case, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in this behalf. 12. After hearing both sides, we are of the view that there is no denial of the fact that the investigations were carried out in this case way back in the year 1995. If the investigations were carried out in August,1995, the show cause notice came to be issued on the conclusion thereof in March,1997, then, we do not see any reason for the Revenue / Department not passing an adjudication order for 17 long years. The petitioners cannot be faulted for having approached this Court belatedly as is the contention of the Revenue. In the present case, it is the petitioners who brought to the notice of the department and repeat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner's approaching this Court after a lapse of several years for return of money but certainly we cannot refuse any relief to the petitioners of quashing of the proceedings of the show cause notice once the legal principles are well settled. The period that has been taken in this case for adjudication of the show cause notice cannot be said to be reasonable. If within a reasonable time the proceedings have to be concluded then in the present case 17 years can never be said to be a reasonable period or time. The department and going by the settled legal principles, cannot pass an adjudication order on the show cause notice and as requested by Mr.Jetly. 14. As a result of the above discussion, we make the Rule absolute in terms of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
