9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (4) TMI 421X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section 112 and confiscation of imported capital goods under section 111 of the Act, etc. 2. According to the petitioner, the demand raised in the show cause notice pertains to the period from October 1996 to January 1998, whereas the show cause notice has been issued on 4th May 2009 and as such, in view of the provisions of section 28(1) of the Act the show cause notice is ex facie time-barred. 3. Mr. Uday Joshi, learned advocate for the petitioners has submitted that on a perusal of the show cause notice, it is apparent that the same pertains to the period from October 1996 to January 1998, whereas the same has been issued on 4th May 2009. Attention is invited to the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 28 of the Act, to submit that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... visions of section 28 of the Act and section 11A of the Central Excise Act is per incuriam. In support of his submissions, the learned advocate has placed reliance upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in Furest Day Lawson Ltd. v. Jindal Exports Ltd., (2001)6 SCC 356 and Union of India and another v. Manik Lal Banerjee, AIR 2006 SC 2844, and Mamleshwar Prasad and another v. Kanhaiya Lal (dead) through L.Rs., (1975) 2 SCC 232. 5. The facts are not in dispute. The petitioner company at the relevant time, was engaged in the activity of manufacturing sheet glass. Vide letter dated 5th September 1997, respondent No.3 Development Commissioner, Kandla Free Trade Zone issued a letter dated 5.9.1997 informing the petitioner company that in view ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the assessee. It was made clear that the Commissioner will decide the matter on merits and that the assessee would not raise the plea of limitation. The parties were directed to maintain status quo as prevailing on the said date till the Commissioner decides the matters in accordance with law and the Commissioner was directed to dispose of the matter within three months. 8. Pursuant to the aforesaid directions issued by the Supreme Court, the respondent No.2 has issued the impugned show cause notice. However, it appears that despite the period of three months for disposing of the matter as directed by the Supreme Court, having expired long back, the Commissioner has still not disposed of the case. 9. According to the petitioner, the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
