9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 766X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CENVAT Account or from personal ledger account from time to time. Petitioner was manufacturing junction boxes for voltage not exceeding 1000 Volts and blanking plates and module plates of various types and sizes. Those were classified under CSH 8536.90 and 8538 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The products were sold under brand name 'Vinay Carol'. It is petitioner's case that its products were reputed. 4. Petitioner received a show cause notice dated 4th May 2000 proposing recovery of Central Excise duty of Rs.4,16,125/- for the period 1st March 1998 to 15th January 1999 along with interest and was also called upon to show cause why penalty should not be imposed on petitioner for improper classification of its products and why the admissibility of SSI exemption under Notification No. 09/2000-CE dated 1st March 2000 should not be refused. 5. Petitioner filed reply for the above mentioned show cause notice and availed personal hearing. The Additional Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs, Surat II by an order dated 20th December 2000 discharged the show cause notice dated 4th May 2000. This order was also upheld by the First Appellate Authority, by an order dated 24th April ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rior officers of Respondent No. 2. There is not even a whisper about these orders in the impugned order. Respondent No.2 has also not dealt with submissions of petitioner that the failure to adjudicate the show cause notices within reasonable time has rendered the show cause notices stale. Mr. Mishra submitted that the judgments that petitioner relied upon, were cases where adjudication order had not been passed but in this case adjudication order having been passed, the question of show cause notices becoming stale would not arise. We cannot accept these submissions of Mr.Mishra. 9. Mr. Singh tendered a compilation containing 16 judgments many passed by this court, some by the Hon'ble Madras High Court and one of the Hon'ble Apex Court. We would refer to one of them, i.e., Parle International Ltd. vs. Union of India 2021 (375) E.L.T. 633 (Bom.) where the court has held that delayed adjudication after more than a decade, defeats the very purpose of issuing show cause notice. An assessee or a dealer or a taxable person must know where it stands after issuance of show cause notice and submission of reply. If for almost 20 years thereafter there is no response from the departmental a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll book because of related litigation in the Supreme Court. Ultimately, after the litigation was over, the show-cause notice was retrieved from the call book and notice of personal hearing was issued. It was further contended that this was a procedural aspect and should not be a ground for setting aside adjudication proceedings. In the above backdrop this Court held as follows:- "15. With the assistance of Mr. Raichandani and Mr.Jetly, we have perused the Petition and the annexures thereto. We have also perused the consistent view taken by this Court, based on which the judgment in the case of Lanvin Synthetics Private Ltd. (supra) was rendered. The obligation on the respondents to adjudicate the show-cause notices with expediency has been repeatedly emphasized. The decisions in the cases of Shirish Harshavadan Shah vs. Deputy Director, E.D., Mumbai [2010 (254) Excise Law Times 259] and Cambata Indus. Pvt. Ltd. Vs Additional Dir. Of Enforcement, Mumbai [2010 (254) Excise Law Times 269] underline as to how show-cause notices issued decades back cannot be allowed to be adjudicated by the Revenue merely because there is no period of limitation prescribed in the statute to complete s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y. The reasons assigned from paragraph 14 onwards would indicate that there were personal hearings in relation to all the notices. There may be voluminous records and there may be number of persons who have allegedly violated the provisions of law. However, the affidavit proceeds to state that there was a personal hearing held on 25th March, 2004. A written brief was submitted by the petitioners and they relied upon the order of the CESTAT in the case of A.S. Moloobhoy & Sons (supra). However, the Revenue found that there were adjournments sought but in the meanwhile, the Department/Revenue challenged the judgment of the CESTAT in the case of A.S. Moloobhoy & Sons in the Supreme Court of India. Thereupon, all the matters were sent in the dormant list/call book. It may be a procedural aspect for the Department/Revenue. Unless and until the Revenue establishes that there is a law mandating taking cognizance of these procedural requirements or these procedural requirements have been engrafted into the applicable legislation so as to enable the Revenue/Department to seek extension of time, in writ jurisdiction, we are not obliged to take notice of these procedural delays at the end o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to be adjudicated upon by the revenue merely because there is no period of limitation prescribed in the statute to complete such proceedings. Larger public interest requires that revenue should adjudicate the show-cause notice expeditiously and within a reasonable period. What would be the reasonable period would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case but certainly a period of 13 years cannot be termed as a reasonable period. Secondly, regarding keeping the show-cause notice in the dormant list or the call book, this Court held that such a plea cannot be allowed or condoned by the writ court to justify inordinate delay at the hands of the revenue. To accept such a contention would defeat the rule of law itself. Taking cognizance of such an aspect would amount to giving credence to extraneous matters. In any case such a procedure internally adopted by the respondents is not binding on the Court. 22. This position has been reiterated by this Court in Raymond Limited Vs. Union of India, 2019 (368) ELT 481 (Bombay). That was a case where show-cause notices were issued during the period 2001 to 2004. Adjudication proceedings were sought to be commenced after 14 to 17 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. This serves two fold purposes - One it puts the party to notice that the show- cause notice is still alive and is only kept in abeyance. Therefore, the party can then safeguard its evidence, till the show-cause notice is taken up for adjudication. Secondly, if the notices are being kept in the call book for some reason, the party gets an opportunity to point to the Revenue that the reasons for keeping it in call book are not correct and the notices could be adjudicated upon immediately. This is the transparent manner in which the State administration must function. 10. In fact, we note that the above manner of functioning is the objective of the State administration, as our attention has been drawn to the C.B.E. & C. Circular No.1053/2017-CX., dated 10-3-2017. In paragraph 9.4 of the above circular of C.B.E.&C. has directed the officers of the department to formally communicate to the party that the notices which have been issued to them, are being transferred to the call book. This would be expected of the State even in the absence of the above circular; the circular only states the obvious. In this case, the show-cause notices were kept in the call book not at the instance o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
