Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2023 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (2) TMI 893 - HC - Central ExciseInordinate delay in adjudication of SCN - Clandestine Removal - removal of electronic overhead crane without payment of duty - it is alleged that the growth shop wrongly availed the benefit of exemption notification no. 118/75-CE dated 30.04.1975 as the goods cleared were not parts of crane but a fully functional crane - period from June 1993 to November 1993 - HELD THAT:- The facts as borne out from the pleadings on record need no repetition. The impugned show cause is of 9th December 1993 (Annexure-5) issued upon the petitioner asking them to show cause as to why the appropriate excise duty amounting to Rs. 1,67,42,847.30 be not imposed upon him under the provisions of Rules 9(B), 52A, 173(B), 173(F) and 173(G) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Section 11A of the CEA, 1944 alleging less payment of duty due to misclassification. The respondents had kept the impugned show cause notice and ten other SCNs as indicated in the chart above in the call book on the ground that the matter was sub-judice. However, from the pleadings on record and also from the averments made in the counter affidavit, it appears that none of the conditions as enumerated in the CBIC circular / guidelines relied upon by the respondents and also by the petitioner stood satisfied for transferring the matter to the call book. Similar issue perused in Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of M/S GPI TEXTILES LIMITED VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [2018 (9) TMI 25 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT] where the show cause notices issued under Section 11 A of the Central Excise Act 1944 were kept pending for 16 years. The present case is a gross one as the impugned show cause notice are kept pending since 9th December 1993 for 29 years and even if some explanation on the part of the respondents relating to pendency of Civil Appeal No. 3793 of 2001 till 05.05.2004 is accepted, there is no justification for not proceeding upon the impugned show cause notice for 18 years thereafter till the impugned notice of personal hearing has been served upon the petitioner. Adjudication of such a show cause notice after 29 years would be contrary to the mandate of Section 11A(11) of the CEA 1944 and would lead to unreasonable and arbitrary results. Such proceedings therefore stands vitiated due to inordinate and unreasonable delay and are accordingly fit to be quashed. The impugned show-cause notice dated 9th December 1993 is quashed. The notices of personal hearing dated 30th November 2022 and 23rd December 2022 are also quashed. Petition allowed.
|