9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 197X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A, supported by medical certificate, had been accommodated. After all, the SCN was pending adjudication for more than six years. It appears to the Court that the only reason why the Principal Commissioner, Central Excise as AA was in a hurry to conclude the proceedings was that he was retiring on the very date he passed the impugned order. He was perhaps anxious that the SCN should not be shown as pending for over six years. It is these extraordinary circumstances, that persuades the Court to exercise its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution.Therefore, the adjudication order is sets aside. Also it is directed that the adjudication proceedings arising out of the SCN issued against the petitioner will now resume before an AA, as may b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 7. For more than three and half years thereafter no proceedings took place. A hearing was fixed before the AA on 25th May, 2015. An additional reply was submitted by the Petitioner during the course of the hearing and at further request was made for some documents. This was acceded to by the AA and a direction was issued to the Department to provide the Petitioner with the documents and information sought. What is significant as far as this hearing on 25th May 2015 was that the matter was adjourned without fixing the next date. 8. Thereafter, by a letter dated 27th May 2015, the Assistant Commissioner (Adjudication) furnished certain documents and information running into 16 pages. The Petitioner was asked to submit a written statem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther pointed out that Mr Harinder Bansi, the Principal Commissioner, Central Excise, Delhi - I, who was the AA who passed the impugned order retired on the date of pronouncement of the impugned order i.e. 30th November, 2015 and perhaps was in a hurry to conclude the adjudication proceedings in relation to the SCN issued more than six years earlier on 21st October, 2009. 13. While the Petitioner does have an alternative remedy of filing an appeal against the impugned adjudication order dated 30th November 2015, the Court is of the view that the facts of the present case where it appears, for reasons elaborated hereafter, that the he reasonable request made by the Petitioner for adjournment was unjustifiably refused, and Petitioner was de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gainst the Petitioner will now resume before an AA, as may be designated by the Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC), from the stage it was prior to the passing of the impugned adjudication order. 16. Mr Satish Kumar, learned Senior Standing counsel for the Department, informs the Court that CBEC will issue an appropriate letter designating an AA, not later than two weeks from today. An intimation regarding the nomination of the new AA and the date place and time of the proceedings will be communicated by the said AA sent to the Petitioner as well as its CA Mr L. N. Malik at their respective addresses already available with the Department by Registered Speed Post at least ten days prior to the date of hearing. The Petitioner will p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
