TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 25X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eriod prescribed is one year. No doubt, the words 'where it is possible to do so' have been used, however, that will not stretch the period to decades as is in the cases in hand. The notices in the present cases having been issued more than decade back and the proceedings having not been concluded within reasonable time, the same deserves to be quashed - petition disposed off. - CWP No. 10530 of 2017 ( O&M ) - - - Dated:- 2-8-2018 - Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal And Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amit Rawal Mr. Jagmohan Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Anshuman Chopra, Advocate, for the respondents ORDER Rajesh Bindal, J. 1. This order will dispose of two writ petitions bearing CWP Nos. 10530 and 10707 of 2017, involving identical issues. 2. Civil Writ Petition No. 10530 of 2017 has been filed challenging show cause notices dated 27.12.2001 (Annexure P-1), 28.8.2002 (Annexure P-2), 3.1.2003 (Annexure P-3), 2.4.2003 (Annexure P- 4), 4.8.2003 (Annexure P-5). 3. In Civil Writ Petition No. 10707 of 2017, challenge has been made to show cause notice dated 13.9.2006 (Annexure P-1). 4. Challenge has also been made to circular dated 29 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve years was held to be reasonable in the absence of any time provided in the Act. The case in hand is even better. The maximum period provided herein is one year. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that issue regarding keeping the cases pending on account of transfer thereof in the call book has also been dealt with by Gujarat High Court. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that show cause notices were issued to the petitioner on the basis of audit objection raised by AG (Audit), Shimla. As the audit objection was contested by the department, as per Circular No. 385/18/98/CX dated 30.3.1998, the cases were transferred to the call book. The provisions of Section 11-A of the Act only provide that order should be passed within the period prescribed, as far as possible. There is no definite time limit prescribed. In any case, the petitioner will not suffer any prejudice as he will be afforded due opportunity before passing any order against him. The matters which were transferred to the call book have now been taken up in view of the revised Circular No. 1023/11/2016-CX dated 8.4.2016 and thereafter notices had been issued to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in respect of cases falling under sub-section (1); (b) within one year from the date of notice, where it is possible to do so, in respect of cases falling under sub-section (4) or subsection (5). 13. Similar issue was considered by Gujarat High Court in M/s Siddhi Vinayak Syntex Private Limited's case (supra). Judgments of different High Courts were referred to and it was summed up that delay in conclusion of proceedings pursuant to show cause notices after a long gap without proper explanation, is unlawful and arbitrary. The Court further examined the fact as to whether transfer of proceedings to call book in view of circular dated 14.12.1995 can be said to be a reasonable explanation. The opinion expressed was that the mandate of law cannot be diluted by issuing circular especially when there is no power to issue such directions regarding transfer of cases to call book. Relevant paras 23 and 24 thereof are extracted below:- 23. Insofar as the show cause notice in the instant case is concerned, the same has been issued under section 11A of the Act. Proceedings under section 11A of the Act are adjudicatory proceedings and the authority which decides the same is a qu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reasons for not being able to determine the amount of duty within the stipulated time frame. However, when a matter is consigned to the call book and kept in cold storage for years together, it is not on account of it not being possible for the authority to decide the case, but on grounds which are extraneous to the proceedings. In the opinion of this court, when the legislature in its wisdom has prescribed a particular time limit, the C.B.E. C. has no power or authority to extend such time limit for years on end merely to await a decision in another case. The adjudicatory authority is required to decide each case as it comes, unless restrained by an order of a higher forum. This court is of the view that the concept of call book created by the C. B. E. C., which provides for transferring pending cases to the call book, is contrary to the statutory mandate, namely, that the adjudicating authority is required to determine the duty within the time frame specified by the legislature as far as possible. Moreover, as discussed hereinabove, there is no power vested in the C. B. E. C. to issue such instructions under any statutory provision, inasmuch as, neither section 37B of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
