9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 738X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 009 before the time limit for deciding the SCNs was introduced in 2011. Even if no limitation is prescribed under the law, then too the adjudicating has to be done within a reasonable period. Whether the limitation would also apply to cases where the SCN had already been issued? - HELD THAT:- The Statute of Limitation, being a procedural law, would apply to pending cases as well with the rider that if something had already expired under the previous law, the new limitation would not revive it. So long as the issue is alive, the new limitation would apply. The date of cause of action is irrelevant to the limitation - Even if the limitation is counted reckoning the date of amendment of section 11A on 8.4.2011, the date of the impugned order 22.2.2019 is clearly time barred and there is no explanation in the order for the inordinate delay. If we consider that there was no limitation at all, even then the delay of almost ten years is passing the order with no reasons whatsoever recorded for the delay cannot be sustained. Conclusion - The impugned order set aside due to the unreasonable delay in adjudication, granting consequential relief to the appellant. The impugned order cannot, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... corded from SSSRM and another firm M/s. Nirmal Inductotherm [Nirmal]. (vii) The SCN was issued merely based on the examination of records of third parties - SSSRM and Nirmal and no evidence has been led by the department to establish that the appellant had manufactured and removed the goods. There is no other substantive or corroborative evidence in any form whatsoever, which could lead one to believe that the appellant had manufactured the goods clandestinely. (viii) The entire case is based on the records and evidence of third-party, and it is a well-settled principle that the demand cannot be raised only on the basis of third-party evidence. (ix) No cross examination of the person whose statements were recorded was allowed, and therefore they could not have been used as evidence at all. (x) In the case of Siva Prasad Mills Private Ltd [2015(329)ELT 250], wherein an identical case was booked based on the same investigation and searches of Nirmal, this tribunal had dismissed the appeal of the department, which was upheld by the High Court. (xi) The allegation of clandestine removal cannot be proved on the basis of assumptions and presumptions. (xii) The dema ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duced in this section from 2011. Section 11A(11) which places this obligation reads as follows now: "(11) The Central Excise Officer shall determine the amount of duty of excise under sub-section (10) - (a) within six months from the date of notice where it is possible to do so, in respect of cases falling under sub-section (1); (b) within two years from the date of notice, where it is possible to do so, in respect of cases falling under sub-section (4)." 7. This section was slightly modified from time to time but there was always a time limit. This section reads as follows: "From 28.04.15 to 13.05.2015 11A(11) The Central Excise Officer shall determine the amount of duty of excise under sub-section (10) - (a) within six months from the date of notice where it is possible to do so, in respect of cases falling under sub-section (1); (b) within one year from the date of notice, where it is possible to do so, in respect of cases falling under sub-section (4) or sub-section (5). From 14.05.2015 to 13.05.2016 11A(11) The Central Excise Officer shall determine the amount of duty of excise under sub-section (10) - (a) within six months from the date of notic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... limit cannot be condoned to the detriment of the assessee or detrimental to the interest of the exchequer; (v) There is a definite purpose and intention of the legislature to prescribe such time limit. The legislature has clearly intended to avoid uncertainly, which otherwise can emerge; and (vi) Even if no time limit is prescribed for adjudication of a show cause notice, then too the adjudication has to be done within a reasonable period. However, what would be a reasonable period would depend upon the nature of the Statute, rights and liabilities thereunder and other relevant factors." ******* 42. The aforesaid discussion would lead to the inevitable conclusion that the impugned order would have to be set aside only for the reason that the adjudication was not completed within the time limit prescribed under sub-section (11) of section 11A of the Central Excise Act." 43. It would, therefore, not be necessary to examine the other two contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. 44. The first issue that has been decided also arises for consideration in all the remaining 209 appeals that have been filed by the assessee for setting aside the im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n accrued earlier, but they are prospective in the sense that they neither have the effect of reviving a right of action which is already barred on the date of their coming into operation, nor do they have the effect of extinguishing a right of action subsisting on that date. [Principles of Statutory Interpretation, 15th Edition by Justice G P Singh page 421 citing Suprene Court decision in Thirumalai Chemicals Ltd. vs UOI (2011) 6 SCC 739]" 12. Even if the limitation is counted reckoning the date of amendment of section 11A on 8.4.2011, the date of the impugned order 22.2.2019 is clearly time barred and there is no explanation in the order for the inordinate delay. If we consider that there was no limitation at all, even then the delay of almost ten years is passing the order with no reasons whatsoever recorded for the delay cannot be sustained. 13. The impugned order cannot, therefore, be sustained and needs to be set aside on this ground alone regardless of the merits of the case. 14. It is, therefore, not necessary for us to examine the merits of the case. The impugned order is set aside and both appeals are allowed with consequential relief to the appellants. [Ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
