Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2020 (4) TMI 282

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e and supportive documents, claims have not been genuine - there are no grounds put-forth by the department, which can attribute any of the reasons to the petitioners for delay, which has been caused in adjudicating the matter. The provisions of law have been made apparently clear and the ratio is emphatically focused on adhering to the time limit while adjudicating the show cause notice. Petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner. - R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9007 of 2019 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9009 of 2019 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20821 of 2019 - - - Dated:- 13-3-2020 - MS. SONIA GOKANI AND MS. GITA GOPI JJ. Appearance: MR HASIT DAVE(1321) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR MITESH R .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ce and further hearing of this Petition; E) Any other further relief that may be deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also please be granted; 3. Petitioner is a private limited Company operating a 100% Export Oriented Undertaking ( EOU for short) at the address shown in the cause title of this petition for manufacturing textile goods like processed fabrics. The first respondent is the Union of India, whereas respondent No.2 is the employee, agent and servant of Union of India. Respondent No.2 is also the adjudicating authority. Respondent No.3 is the Central Excise Superintendent, which issued impugned notice dated 07.05.2000. 4. The petitioner set up a 100% EOU for textile goods in the year 1998 and had, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nor the reason for reviving the case of adjudication, and thus there is no justification or reason brought on record by the respondents for transferring the case to call book and for retrieving the case from call book, and thus there is no justification or reason on record showing why the case remained unattended for about 19 long years 7. Affidavit-in-reply is filed by the respondents stating therein that the reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in Siddhi Vinayak Syntex Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India in Special Civil Application No. 19437 of 2016. However, this has been challenged by the Department before the Apex Court. All other aspects have been refuted and denied specifically. 8. We have heard Mr. Jay Mehta, learne .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... m the year 2011 a time limit has been prescribed for determining the amount of duty of excise where it is possible. It cannot be gainsaid that when the legislature prescribes a time limit, it is incumbent upon the authority to abide by the same. While it is true that the legislature has provided for such abiding by the time limit where it is possible to do so, sub-section (11) of section 11A of the Act gives an indication as to the legislative intent, namely that as far as may be possible the amount of duty should be determined within the above time frame, viz. Six months from the date of the notice in respect of cases falling under sub-section (1)and one year from the date of the notice in respect of cases falling under sub-section (4) or .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... is contrary to the statutory mandate, namely, that the adjudicating authority is required to determine the duty within the time frame specified by the legislature as far as possible. Moreover, as discussed hereinabove, there is no power vested in the CBEC to issue such instructions under any statutory provision, inasmuch as, neither section 37B of the Central Excise Act nor rule 31 of the rules, envisage issuance of such directions. The concept of call book is, therefore, contrary to the provisions of the Central Excise Act and such instructions are beyond the scope of the authority of the CBEC. Transferring matters to the call book being contrary to the provisions of law, the explanation put forth by the respondents for the delay in concl .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates