TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 906X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not indicate as to why the Revenue took all these years, and after conclusion of the personal hearing in the year 2004, to pass the final order. The Revenue/Department has not been able to justify its lapse in not adjudicating the show cause notice issued on 28th March, 2002 for more than 15 years. There may be reasons enough for the Revenue to retain some matters like this in the call book, but those reasons do not find any support in law insofar as the present petitioner's case is concerned. Merely because there are number of such cases in the call book does not mean that we should not grant any relief to the petitioner before us - petition allowed. - WRIT PETITION NO. 2585 OF 2017 - - - Dated:- 12-12-2017 - S. C. DHARMADHIKARI SMT. BHARATI H. DANGRE, JJ. Mr. Bharat Raichandani i/b. UBR Legal for the Petitioner. Mr. Pradeep Shivnarain Jetly for the Respondents. ORAL JUDGMENT (PER S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J): 1. In this Petition, hearing was concluded yesterday and the matter was closed for dictating judgment in open Court. 2. Rule. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith. 3. This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks a wr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emises of the petitioner and seized various records and documents found at the same. A statement of the Director of the petitioner-company under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, was also recorded together with other employees. After all this, the petitioner was served with a demand and that was for money. That was voluntarily complied with in as much as the duty liability was deposited. 6. After all this, the 3rd respondent issued the impugned show cause notice dated 28th March, 2002, alleging as under: 38.1 NOW THEREFORE, M/s. Sanghvi Reconditioners Pvt. Ltd., are hereby called upon to show cause to the Commissioner of Customs, Air Cargo Complex, Sahar, Mumbai, within 30 days of the receipt of this notice as to why: (a) the total duty amounting to ₹ 2,06,42,669/should not be demanded on the goods imported and cleared from Sahar Air Cargo Complex, Mumbai, as detailed in Annexure 'A' to this show cause notice and recovered from them in terms of Sec. 28(1) and Section 72 of the Customs Act, 1962, read with the proviso thereof; (b) interest amount at applicable rate, demanded and should not be recovered from them on duty not paid in terms of Sec. 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... B and Section 72 ibid; (c) the imported goods as detailed in Annexure 'A' to this show cause notice totally valued at ₹ 1,05,09,721/which were imported and cleared from Kolkatta port, should not be held liable for confiscation under Section 111(d), 111(m), and 111(o) ibid; independently and without prejudice to each other. (d) penalty should not be imposed on them under Sec. 112(a) and Section 112(b) and Section 72 and/or Sec. 114A ibid; independently and without prejudice to each other. 38.4 NOW THEREFORE, M/s. Sanghvi Reconditioners Pvt. Ltd., are hereby called upon to show cause to the Commissioner of Customs, Air Cargo Complex, Chennai, within 30 days of the receipt of this notice as to why: (a) the total duty amounting of ₹ 7,88,096/should not be demanded on the goods imported and cleared at Chennai Air Cargo Complex, as detailed in Annexure 'A' to this show cause notice and recovered from them in terms of Sec.28(1) and Section 72 of the Customs Act, 1962, read with the proviso thereof; (b) interest amount at applicable rate, demanded and should not be recovered from them on duty not paid in terms of Sec. 28AB and Section 72 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dice to the petitioner, for the petitioner has absolutely no records available of such an old transaction. The transaction dates back to 18 years, namely, 1999. For 15 years, there was no adjudication or a final order made in the show cause notice. Therefore, the petitioner no.1 had a reasonable belief that the proceedings are dropped. They have not maintained any records save and except the reply to the show cause notice. Today, there is nothing available so as to disprove or falsify the allegations in the show cause notice. There could be a reason enough and bonafide, for the staff working at the relevant time may not be available with the petitioners and particularly those officers whose statements were recorded. In absence of all this, the attempt to adjudicate the show cause notice should not be countenanced. 10. Amongst others, Mr. Raichandani places reliance upon a judgment and order of this Court, to which one of us (Shri S. C. Dharmadhikari, J.) was a party, in the case of Lanvin Synthetics Private Ltd. Vs Union of India, reported in 2015 (322) Excise Law Times 429 . The counsel would submit that this issue is squarely covered by this judgment. 11. On the other ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on. 15. With the assistance of Mr. Raichandani and Mr. Jetly, we have perused the Petition and the annexures thereto. We have also perused the consistent view taken by this Court, based on which the judgment in the case of Lanvin Synthetics Private Ltd. (supra) was rendered. The obligation on the respondents to adjudicate the show cause notices with expediency has been repeatedly emphasized. The decisions in the cases of Shirish Harshavadan Shah vs. Deputy Director, E.D., Mumbai [2010 (254) Excise Law Times 259] and Cambata Indus. Pvt. Ltd. Vs Additional Dir. Of Enforcement, Mumbai [2010 (254) Excise Law Times 269] underline as to how show cause notices issued decades back cannot be allowed to be adjudicated by the Revenue merely because there is no period of limitation prescribed in the statute to complete such proceedings. The adjudication proceedings serve a definite purpose. The object is to secure and recover public revenue. The larger public interest therefore requires that the Revenue and its officials adjudicate the show cause notices expeditiously and within a reasonable time. The term 'reasonable time' is flexible enough and would depend upon the facts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A written brief was submitted by the petitioners and they relied upon the order of the CESTAT in the case of A.S. Moloobhoy Sons (supra). However, the Revenue found that there were adjournments sought but in the meanwhile, the Department/Revenue challenged the judgment of the CESTAT in the case of A.S. Moloobhoy Sons in the Supreme Court of India. Thereupon, all the matters were sent in the dormant list/call book. It may be a procedural aspect for the Department/Revenue. Unless and until the Revenue establishes that there is a law mandating taking cognizance of these procedural requirements or these procedural requirements have been engrafted into the applicable legislation so as to enable the Revenue/Department to seek extension of time, in writ jurisdiction, we are not obliged to take notice of these procedural delays at the end of the Revenue/Department. Accepting that case would defeat the rule of law itself. That would also result into taking cognizance of extraneous matters and basing our conclusion thereupon would then mean violating the principles laid down in the binding judgments of this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court. That the matters of present natur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
