9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 532X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitions the respective petitioners have challenged show cause notices issued to them ranging from 2000 to 2005 on different dates raising demand of central excise duty, penalty and interest, being arbitrary, unjust and illegal as the authority sought to adjudicate the said show cause notices by issuing summons for personal hearing in the month of July, 2018 on different dates. 3. As per the case of the petitioners, they had submitted their replies to the show cause notices ranging from February, 2001 to June, 2005, However, after submission of reply, it appears that the show cause notices were transferred to call book ranging from 21-10-2003 to 2006. In some of the cases, the case of the petitioner is that, after retrieval from call ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... v. Union of India - 2017 (352) E.L.T. 455 (Guj.) and requested to quash and set aside the impugned show cause notices in the cases of respective petitioners. He has asserted that the case of the petitioners is squarely covered by the decision as referred to hereinabove. 5. As against that, Learned Advocate Mr. Nirzar Desai appearing for the contesting respondents, though unable to justify the delay in adjudication proceedings, however, informs that the department has carried the decision rendered in Siddhi Vinayak Syntex Pvt. Ltd. (supra) before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, as recorded in one of the order passed by this Court in a group of petitions bearing Special Civil Application No. 8940 of 2017 [2018 (8) G.S.T.L. 361 (Guj. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Central Excise Officer shall determine the amount of duty of excise under sub-section (10) - (a) within six months from the date of notice where it is possible to do so, 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 sub-section (5). 24. Thus, with effect from the year 2011 a time limit has been prescribed for determining the amount of duty of excise where it is possible. It cannot be gainsaid that when the Legislature prescribes a time limit, it is incumbent upon the authority to abide by the same. While it is true that the Legislature has provided ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 instruct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the year 2018 for personal hearing after about nearly thirteen years to seventeen years for the purpose of adjudication is unlawful, arbitrary and vitiates the entire proceedings.
8. We are in respectful agreement with the decision rendered in the case of Siddhi Vinayak Syntex Pvt. Ltd. (supra), and since the issue which is relied on for determination of these petitions not under challenge even before the Hon'ble Supreme Court as referred to hereinabove, the petitions are required to be allowed. Thus the impugned show cause notices issued in the case of respective petitions are hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs. Registry is directed to place a copy of this order in each of the petition. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
