9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1727X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - R/Special Civil Application No. 12200 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 20-12-2018 - S.R. Brahmbhatt and Umesh A. Trivedi, JJ. Shri Dhaval Shah and S.S. Iyer, for the Petitioner. Shri Nirzar S. Desai, for the Respondent. JUDGMENT Rule : Mr. Nirzar Desai, Learned Advocate waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondents. With the consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing today. 2. By way of this petition the petitioners challenges the Order-in-Original No. SRT/DIV-IV/ADJ-14/2018, dated 11-1-2018 passed by Respondent No. 3 - The Assistant Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Division-IV, Surat, as also the show cause notice dated 15-7-2004 which led t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt in the case of Siddhi Vinayak Syntex Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, reported in 2017 (352) E.L.T. 455 (Guj.). 3. Notice returnable on 7-9-2018. By way of ad-interim relief, it is provided that the respondents shall not carry out coercive recovery arising out of the impugned order of adjudication. 4. Direct service for Respondents No. 2 and 3 is permitted. 5. Pursuant to the notice the Principal Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad, filed an affidavit-in-reply on behalf of Respondent No. 1 denying the contentions raised in the petition. 6. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the impugned order is arbitrary, illegal and unreasonable as, though the show cause notice is issued in the year 2004 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inayak Syntex Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is stayed by the Hon ble Supreme Court. 8. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the order impugned and affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondents in support of the same but we are unable to accept the contention raised on behalf of the respondents that since the decision rendered in the case of Siddhi Vinayak Syntex Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is carried to the Hon ble Supreme Court, the consideration of this case be kept sine die. Since inordinate delay in adjudication proceedings pursuant to the show cause notice for nearly about 14 years is unreasonable, without any explanation, without there being any fault on the part of the petitioners and the issue is covered by the decision relied on by the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
