9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1620X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l book and issued communication dated 03.12.2018 to the petitioner for personal hearing in respect of the impugned show cause notice. The respondents after keeping the impugned show cause notices in the call book, have not chosen to follow up it for unduly long period. It is very evident from the affidavit in reply filed by the respondents that it was only after the filing of this petition, the impugned show cause notices have been taken out from the call book and notice for personal hearing was issued to the petitioner. The act on the part of the respondents of keeping the impugned show cause notices in call book for unduly long period, without disclosing any reason for delay is arbitrary in exercise of powers and is also in violation o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng final hearing and disposal of the Writ petition. 4. The background facts leading to filing of this petition as could be gathered from the memo of the petition needs to be set out as under: 4.1 The petitioner, a Public Limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, with factory at Limda in Vadodara District, is engaged in the manufacture of pneumatic tyres. The petitioner also manufactures at its factories in Perambra and Kalamasserry in Kerala as well as in Orgdam in Chennai, Tamil Nadu. While selling these tyres, during the period 28.08.2002 till 26.05.2017 covering the period from August, 1997 to October, 2016 covered by the 25 Show Cause Notices, the petitioner was entitled to arrive at an assesable va ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ces are challenged in this petition. 5. We have heard Mr. Joseph Kodhiantera, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Hardik P. Modh, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. P.Y. Divyeshvar, learned advocate for the respondents. 6. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the issue involved in the present petition is no longer res integra and the show cause notice issued by the respondent No.4 herein are in clear breach of the statutory mandate of the Section 11A(11) of the Customs Act and can no longer be sustained. In support of his submissions he placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of M/s. Siddhi Vinayak Syntex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors. reported in 2017(352) ELT 455. It hi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he case. In this regard, it is submitted that the grievance of the petitioner has been redressed. The impugned 25 show cause notices have been take out of the call book and personal hearing has been fixed for 14.12.2018 at 11.30 A.M. before the Commissioner. A copy of the letter F.No. V(15)14/ D.Wag/Dem/ Apollo/16-17 dated 03.12.2018 issued by Shri S.K. Roy, Superintendent (Adjudication Section Commr. Power) CGST and Central Excise, Vadodara-I is annexed as R-1 for the ready reference. 8. We have heard learned advocates of either side and we have also perused the documents on record. It is undisputed fact that the issue involved in the impugned Show Cause Notices had earlier raised with respect to the petitioner's operation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... milar issue raised for consideration before this Court in the cases of Parimal Textiles Vs. Union of India reported in 2018(8) G.S.T.L. 361 (Guj.), M/s. Siddhi Vinayak Syntex Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and Shivkurpa Processors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India reported in 2018 (362) E.L.T. 773 (Guj.). In the case of Shivkrupa (Supra), this Court has held as under: 10. We have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the documents on record. The undisputed aspect that emerged from the proceedings would unequivocally indicate that notice dated 22.8.2002 did not result into any order for quite sometime and as per say of respondent, it was consigned to the call book as per the circulars prevalent. The authority appeared to have proceeded ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ilable to the respondent, as notice dtd 22.8.2002 had not been acted for long long period of 17 years, that in itself is sufficient to accept and justify the plea of prejudice without any further probing into the matter. The resurrection of notice dated 22.8.2002 assuming for the sake of convenience without admitting that was admittedly after subsequent notice, then also, in view of established principles of law and provisions of statute, the said resurrection would be not permissible in light of decisions cited hereinabove. 11. In our view, the issue involved in this petition is therefore, squarely covered by the decisions of this Court and the impugned show cause notices cannot be permitted to be processed further. 12. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
