9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 15X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of a show cause notice issued 25 years back, observed that failure of the adjudicating authority to adjudicate upon the same, for about 25 years, itself would be illegal, and that the authorities could not have been liberal in granting adjournment and not adjudicating the show cause notice for such a long lapse of time. The Respondents are directed to refund to the Petitioner INR 10,69,666/- deposited by the Petitioner under protest during the course of the investigation with interest at the rate 12 per cent per annum from the date of deposit till the date of actual refund - petition allowed. - G. S. KULKARNI JITENDRA JAIN, JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. Prakash Shah with Mr. Jas Sanghavi with Mr. Yash Prakash i/b. PDS Legal. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urtherance of the impugned Show Cause cum Demand Notice F. No. CPUK/Case 2/96-97 dated 14.02.1997 issued by the Respondent No. 2; (c) that pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition, this Hon ble Court by an interim order be pleased to restrain the Respondents by themselves, their officers, subordinates, servants and agents from taking any steps or proceedings pursuant to and in furtherance of the impugned Show Cause cum Demand Notice F. No. CPU.K/Case 2/96-97 dated 14.02.1997 issued by the Respondent No. 2 including adjudication thereof; (d) ad-interim reliefs in terms of prayer (c) above; (e) pass such order or further orders as may be deemed just and proper by this Hon ble Court in the facts and circumstanc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been filed by M/s. DPL Limited before the Hon ble Bombay High Court for seeking to quash SCN F.No. CPU.K/Case 2/96-97 dated 14.02.1977 issued by erstwhile Commissioner, C.Ex., Mumbai-III, for the reasons of inordinate delay in adjudication of demand notice and also seeking refund of Rs.10,69,666/- deposited, under protest. 2. Thane Rural Commissionerate has informed that no such SCN has been received by them after the formation of CST Commissionerates. 3. As the matter is before the Hon ble High Court and the next date of hearing is on 11.04.2023, it is requested to scrupulously go through your records to ascertain pendency/disposal of SCN F.No. CPU.K/Case 2/96-97 dated 14.02.1997 issued to M/s.EPL Limited (formerly known as Ess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CC Online Bom 9781; in Reliance Industries Ltd. vs. Union of India 2019 (368) E.L.T. 854 (Bom.); in Parle International Ltd. vs. Union of India 2021 (375) E.L.T. 633 (Bom.) and in Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Company Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of CGST and CX, DIV-IX, Mumbai Central GST Commissionerate 2022 (382) E.L.T. 206 (Bom.), and in the recent decision by this Court in Coventary Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Joint Commissioner CGST and Central Excise Anr. 2023(8) TMI 352-Bombay High Court 6. We may also usefully refer to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Premier Ltd. Vs. Union of India 2017 (354) E.L.T. 365 (Bom.) wherein in similar circumstances a Division Bench of this Court, being confronted with a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
