Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be discontinued on 31-07-2025
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please
let us know via our feedback form
so we can address them promptly.
Home
2023 (6) TMI 748 - HC - Central ExciseValidity of respective show cause notices (SCN) of the year 1994 to 1997 and the respective notices of personal hearing issued in the year 2022 i.e. after a lapse of about 27 to 29 years - Manufacture - Marketability - Intermediate goods - HELD THAT - The issue involved in these cases is squarely covered by decision in the case of TATA STEEL LTD. (GROWTH SHOP) FORMERLY TATA IRON AND STEEL COMPANY LTD (GROWTH SHOP) JAMSHEDPUR VERSUS UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER CENTRAL GST AND CENTRAL EXCISE JAMSHEDPUR ASSISTANT COLLECTOR CENTRAL EXCISE DIVISION 1 JAMSHEDPUR SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL EXCISE ADITYAPUR RANGE III SUPERINTENDENT (ADJUDICATION) CENTRAL GST AND CENTRAL EXCISE JAMSHEDPUR 2023 (2) TMI 893 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT where it was held that 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. After going through the aforesaid judgment it clearly transpires that in paragraph No. 9 the show cause notices involved in all these writ applications have been mentioned in tabular form and this Court has taken note of the pendency of show cause notices and/or the writ petition pending for adjudication. It further transpires that was disposed of on 14.02.2023 in presence of the parties and in the open Court but for the reason best known to the respondent-Department just after couple of days on 17.02.2023 they passed the common order in original (OIO) affirming the demand as made in the 10 show cause notices. This action of the Respondent Commissioner is against the settled principles of law which demands that the Revenue Officers are bound by the decisions of the appellate authorities and that the principle of judicial discipline requires that the orders of the higher appellate authorities are followed unreservedly by the subordinate authorities. As a matter of fact the Commissioner has not acted in a bonafide manner and has attempted to make the present writ petitions infructuous. When the show cause notices were kept pending for 26 -27 years; there was no reason to proceed with such great speed in passing the impugned order. In this regard reference may be made to the case of PARLE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 2020 (11) TMI 842 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT wherein the Hon ble Court has held we have no hesitation to hold that respondents were not justified in commencing adjudication proceeding 13 years after issuance of the show-cause notices dated 01.06.2006 and 28.11.2006. Such adjudication proceeding is therefore held to be invalid. In the present case since the issue did attain finality in 2004 itself there was absolutely no justification in keeping the show cause notices pending thereafter. The file notings show that though the Commissioner was apprised in 2007 that the issue had attained a finality still a decision was taken by him on 26.10.2007 to keep the cases in the call book. Mere pendency of another matter before the Tribunal when the issue had attained a finality by the Hon ble Apex Court cannot be a reason to keep the SCN in the call book. A lapse of 18 years from 2004 to 2022 remains unexplained. Neither is there an explanation for any change of circumstances for taking out the notices from the call book in November 2022. In such circumstances the SCN and the OIO cannot be countenanced. Application allowed.
|