9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 749X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an that the time prescribed can be extended perpetually. The time limit cannot be taken to be directory except in a case where the Authority has a reason to offer as an explanation for extending the said time limit - In the present case, no explanation has been offered in the written statement which can be held to be a plausible explanation for not adjudicating upon the Show Cause Notice within the time prescribed. No explanation has been offered in the written statement as to why the Show Cause Notice(s) issued in 2009/2010 could not be adjudicated prior to 2018. The present writ petitions are allowed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Book category in terms of Circular No.1053/02/2017-CX dated 10.03.2017, issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs (CBIC), with the approval of the Competent Authority on 20th March, 2019 and thus Show Cause Notices cannot be quashed for non-adjudication. 7. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the present Show Cause Notice(s) were issued in 2009/2010 and despite lapse of more than 11 years, the same have not been adjudicated upon. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon Section 11(A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short, 'the Act') and interpretation thereof by Courts in 'Siddhi Vinayak Syntex Private Limited vs Union of India', 2017 (352) E.L.T. 455; Special Leave Petition (C) No. 18214 of 2017 - 'Union of India and others vs M/s Siddhi Vinayak Syntex Private Limited', decided on 28.07.2017; 'Parimal Textiles vs. Union of India', 2018(8), GSTL 361 and that of the Supreme Court in 'State of Punjab vs. Bathinda District Co-op. Milk P. Union Limited', 2007(217) ELT 325'. 8. Ld. Counsel for the respondents on the other hand has relied upon the aforesaid Circular No.1053/02/2017-CX dated 10.03 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the reason of- (a) fraud; or (b) collusion; or (c) any wilful mis-statement; or (d) suppression of facts; or (e) contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or of the rules made thereunder with intent to evade payment of duty, by any person chargeable with the duty, the Central Excise Officer shall, within five years from the relevant date, serve notice on such person requiring him to show cause why he should not pay the amount specified in the notice along with interest payable thereon under section 11AA and a penalty equivalent to the duty specified in the notice. ((5) to (7) xx xx xx) (7A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or sub-section (3) or sub-section (4), the Central Excise Officer may, serve, subsequent to any notice or notices served under any of those sub-sections, as the case may be, a statement, containing the details of duty of central excise not levied or paid or short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded for the subsequent period, on the person chargeable to duty of central excise, then, service of such statement shall be deemed to be service of notice on such person under the aforesaid sub-section (1) o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Union of India and others vs M/s Siddhi Vinayak Syntex Private Limited, in which notice has been issued only to the extent as to whether Circular No. 162/73/95-CX dated 14.12.1995, issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, is in conformity/ authorized by the provisions of Section 37-B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The order on merit has been upheld vide order dated 28.7.2017. 16. The view expressed in M/s Siddhi Vinayak Syntex Private Limited's case (supra) was subsequently followed by Gujarat High Court in Parimal Textiles' case (supra), where again belated order passed after issuing show cause notice, was set aside. 17. Section 11A(11) of the Act provides that Cental Excise Officer shall determine the amount of duty within six months in case notice has been under Sub-section 1 thereof, whereas in the case of fraud, collusion, etc., the period prescribed is one year. No doubt, the words 'where it is possible to do so' have been used, however, that will not stretch the period to decades as is in the cases in hand. 18. In Bhatinda District Co-op. Milk P. Union Limited's case (s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
