TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 962X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in this case, long delay has resulted in papers being misplaced. The reasonable period may vary for case to case. However, when the notices are being kept in abeyance (by keeping them in the call book as in this case), the Revenue should keep the parties informed of the same. This serves two fold purpose One it puts the party to notice that the show cause notice is still alive and is only kept in abeyance. The party can then safeguard its evidence, till the show cause notice is taken up for adjudication. Secondly, if the notices are being kept in the call book for some reason, the party gets an opportunity to point out to the Revenue that the reasons for keeping it in call book are not correct and the notices could be adjudicated upon immediately. This is the transparent manner in which the State administration must function. It was reasonable for the petitioners to proceed on the basis that the department was not interested in prosecuting the show cause notices and had abandoned it. These proceedings are now being commenced after such a long gap, after having led the petitioner to reasonably expect that the proceedings are dropped. Therefore, even if, notices can be kept i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny time limit being provided in the statute, show- cause notices must be disposed of within reasonable time. This Court in Bhagwandas S. Tolani V/s. B.C. Agarwal and Ors., 1983 (12) ELT 44 (Bom.), Premier Limited V/s. Union of India 2017 (354) ELT 365 (Bom) and Sanghvi Re-conditioners Pvt. Ltd. V/s. Union of India (Writ Petition No.2585/2017 decided on 12/12/2017) held that holding adjudication, after a long delay after the issuing of show- cause notices, is bad in law. 4. In response to the above, it is the case of the Revenue in its affidavit- in- reply that admittedly the show cause notices were issued to the petitioners during the period 2001 to 2004. These notices were issued on the basis of CERA objection (audit objection), which the Revenue contested with CERA Audit. Because of its objection, the Revenue had kept the show cause notices issued to the petitioner in the call book in the year 2001 (although show cause notices for the subsequent period were issued). It was only in September, 2011 that the respondents accepted the CERA's objection and consequently, the notices were retrieved from the call book on 24/09/2012. Thereafter, the officers of the Revenue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Hon'ble Supreme Court were justifiable reasons for keeping it in call book. Thus, the petition should be dismissed and the petitioner be directed to attend the hearing of the show- cause notices. 6. We specifically asked Mr. Jetly, Learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue, whether any intimation was given to the petitioners either in 2001 or in 2013 that the show cause notices are being kept in the call book and the reason for it i.e. awaiting a final decision in the CERA audit objection and / or the decision in the Apex Court in the appeal filed by the Revenue from the order of the Tribunal in case of petitioners' Indore and Bhopal Unit. Mr. Jetly very fairly states that no intimation of keeping the show- cause notices in the call book was given. Thus, the occasion to give any reasons for it being kept in the call book to the petitioner did not arise. 7. In the aforesaid facts, the issue that arises for our consideration is whether in the present facts, commencement of adjudication proceedings after a long delay of 14 to 17 years is justified when the party in all these years has not been put to notice that the proceedings were kept in abeyance. In fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom our consideration the complaint of the petitioner that in a matter as old as of 1999, if now the adjudication has to be held, it will be impossible for them to trace out all the records and equally, contact those officials who may not be in their service any longer. Thus, they would have no opportunity, much less reasonable and fair, to defend the proceedings. That is equally a balancing factor in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 9. In the present facts, it is the case of the petitioner that because of long delay, papers and proceedings relevant to meet the show-cause notice are not available. Thus, seriously hampering the petitioners to appropriately meet the show cause notice. This delay in taking up the adjudication of the show -cause notice (in the absence of any fault on the part of the party complaining) is a facet of breach of principles of natural justice. It impinges on procedural fairness, in the absence of the party being put to notice that the show cause notices will be taken up for consideration, after some event and / or time, when it is not heard in a reasonable time. In the absence of the above, particularly as in this case, long delay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
