Adjudication after 7 years barred. Elasticity of time frame "where it is possible to do so", u/s 11A(11) clarified. Legislature's intent emphasized.

The High Court interpreted the phrase "where it is possible to do so" u/s 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, ruling that it allows flexibility only in exceptional circumstances beyond the Adjudicating Authority's control. The legislative intent behind Section 11A(11) emphasizes timely adjudication. The Court held that the 6-month or 2-year limitation cannot be extended to over 7 years. Citing K.M Sharma Vs. I.T.O, it stressed strict construction of fiscal statutes for certainty. Delay impacts Article 14 of the Constitution; a reasonable time frame of 5 years u/s 11A is upheld. The Court found a 7-year delay unreasonable, emphasizing completion within the statutory 5-year limit. The application was allowed. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X