Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2023 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (8) TMI 1166 - HC - CustomsAdjudication of SCN after 25 years - Confiscation of goods imported by the petitioner - redemption fine - penalty - impugned order passed after a delay of more than 25 years from the date of issue of show cause notice and after about 30 years from the date of import - HELD THAT - Section 28(2A) of the Customs Act inserted by the Finance Act, 2001 provides for completion of adjudication proceedings within a period of six months or one year from the date of notice - this provision is similar to Section 73(4B) of the Finance Act, 1994 and the said provision of the Finance Act, 1994 has been analysed by this Court in paragraphs 14 to 19 in the case of COVENTRY ESTATES PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE JOINT COMMISSIONER CGST AND CENTRAL EXCISE ANR. 2023 (8) TMI 352 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT wherein, similar provision considered to highlight the time frame for adjudication. In the light of the decision of this Court, the submission made by the Respondents that there is no time-limit in adjudication of show cause notice ought to be rejected. Even otherwise, in the absence of Section 28(2A) of the the Customs Act, the adjudication proceedings have to be completed within a reasonable period and in the facts of the present case, pending adjudication of show cause notice for a period of 25 years cannot be said to be a reasonable period. Looking from any angle, the show cause notice dated 7th May 1997, in the facts of the present case, is required to be quashed and set aside - petition allowed.
Issues involved:
The judgment involves a challenge to an order passed under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962, confirming a demand, imposing a penalty, and confiscating goods, along with issues related to delay in adjudication and violation of principles of natural justice. Challenge to Order under Customs Act: The petitioner challenged an order confirming a demand, imposing a penalty, and confiscating goods under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. The order was passed against the petitioner after a delay of more than 25 years from the date of the show cause notice issued in 1997. The petitioner argued that the delay hindered their ability to defend the case and requested relief due to the vague explanation provided by the respondents for the delay. Respondents' Submission and Court's Analysis: The respondents stated that the order against the co-noticees, including the petitioner, was quashed in a separate case, rendering the present petition moot. However, the court found the explanation for the 25-year delay due to departmental restructuring to be insufficient. The court cited a previous case to reject such a general explanation for the delay in adjudication. The court also noted that even if the petitioner missed hearings, the respondents failed to take steps to complete the adjudication process between 2000 and 2020, highlighting a lack of action on their part. Legal Provisions and Conclusion: The court referenced Section 28(2A) of the Customs Act, which mandates completion of adjudication proceedings within a specified timeframe. The court emphasized the need for timely adjudication and concluded that the delay in this case was unreasonable, leading to the quashing of the show cause notice and the impugned order. The court also highlighted a violation of natural justice principles due to the lack of evidence showing proper service of notices on the petitioner. Ultimately, the court made the rule absolute, quashing the impugned order and the notice, with no order as to costs.
|