TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 1235X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lication No. 20125 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 28-6-2017 - S.R. Brahmbhat and A.G. Uraizee, JJ. Shri Paresh M. Dave, Advocate, for the Petitioner. Shri Devang Vyas, ASG and Ankit Shah, Advocate, for the Respondent. JUDGMENT Rule . Mr. Ankit Shah, learned advocate, waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No. 2. Shri Devang Vyas, Learned A.S.G. waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No. 1. By consent, rule is fixed forthwith. 2. The petitioners, noticees, mentioned in the notice dated 27-12-1995, at page No. 23, have approached this Court by way of this petition with following prayers : (A) That Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a Writ of Prohibition or any other appropriate writ, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the open market, and they were supplied to the customers who purchased machines from the petitioners. 3.2 M/s. Alidhara Textile Engineers Ltd., a public limited company was also engaged in marketing of textile machines manufactured by the petitioners. The Central Excise officers conducted enquiry and investigation against the petitioners and also M/s. Alidhara and ultimately, a Show Cause Notice F.No. V(Ch.84)15-12/OA/94, dated 7-4-1994 was issued by the Collector of Central Excise, Surat who demanded Central Excise duty of ₹ 5,76,09,599/- from M/s. Alidhara Textile Engineers Ltd., Udhna, for various textile machines marketed by them during 1-4-1989 to 30-9-1992. In this show cause notice, penalties were proposed to be imposed on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellate Tribunal, Bombay on 22-7-2005, and vide Order No. A/911/WZB/05/C-I, dated 22-5-2005 [22-7-2005] [2006 (205) E.L.T. 184 (Tri. - Mumbai)], the Appellate Tribunal held that the Commissioner had gone beyond the scope of the notice and therefore the order passed by him needed to be set aside, but the Department was not entitled to demand duty from M/s. Alidhara Textile Engineers Ltd. as a consequence of the Commissioner's order being set aside. 3.6 In the meanwhile, a separate show cause notice F.No. V(Ch.84)15-6/OA/95, dated 27-12-1995 has been issued by the Collector of Central Excise, Surat, to various parties including the petitioners herein. In this show cause notice, the demand of differential excise duty has been raised aga ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e same evidence had already been issued to the same parties on 7-4-1994 wherein also the extended period of limitation was invoked, and that the proceedings of such show cause notice stood terminated in favour of the petitioners. However, to utter shock and surprise of the petitioners, notices/letters dated 7-9-2016 came to be issued from the office of the 2nd respondent referring to the above referred show cause notice dated 27-12-1995 and informing the parties that personal bearing of the show cause notice would be held on 22-9-2016 before the Commissioner. 3.9 The petitioners advocate, therefore, under the instructions of the petitioners, submitted an application on 19-9-2016 before the Commissioner and requested for time because the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... whose statements were recorded by the investigating officers for raising allegations in the show cause notice are also not available, and even the statements of such persons as well as the documents listed at Annexure to show cause notice are also not available with the petitioners because all such documents are misplaced or lost due to long time gap, shifting of the office premises and also because of flood that affected Surat in past. In these circumstances, the petitioners are constrained to approach this Court against revival of the adjudication proceedings proposed by the Central Excise authorities after more than 20 years. This has given rise to filing of this petition, essentially challenging the action of reviving and/or restart ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
