TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 900X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ensure that, buoyed by the said power, the Settlement Commission does not transmute itself into an adjudicating authority, in respect of the case before it. The conferment, on the Settlement Commission, of the powers of a Customs officer , or the powers of the Central Excise Officer would not, ipso facto, result in the Settlement Commission metamorphosing into an adjudicating authority. The powers of a Central Excise Officer , or the powers of the Customs officer , conferred on the Settlement Commission, are so conferred to further its aims and objectives, i.e. to further the process of settlement, and assess whether there has, or has not, been full and true disclosure of liability by the applicant before the Settlement Commission. The Settlement Commission does not, by the conferment of such power, become a parallel adjudicating authority, adjudicating the Show Cause Notice - We are aware that the specific statutory stipulation, in Section 32F(1) of the Act, providing for complexity of the investigation , as a specific ground for the Settlement Commission to decide or to reject the application filed before it, does not find place in Section 32F, as substituted by Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Show Cause Notice, dated 16th January, for an amount of ₹ 11,80,12,105/-, along with interest, as it has chosen to do - petition allowed. - WP(C) 822/2015 - - - Dated:- 19-11-2019 - CHIEF JUSTICE MR. C.HARI SHANKAR J. Petitioners Through: Mr. Satish Aggarwala, Sr. Standing Counsel Respondents Through: Mr. Sudhir Malhotra, Advocate J U D G M E N T C. HARI SHANKAR, J. 1. These proceedings emanate from a Show Cause Notice, dated 16th January, 2013, issued by the Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence (Petitioner No. 2 herein and referred to, hereinafter, as the DGCEI ) to the respondents, whereby it was alleged that Respondents No.1 and 2 (M/s. Amit Decorative Plywoods Pvt Ltd and M/s Amit Densified Doors Pvt Ltd) had indulged in clandestine removal and undervaluation of goods manufactured by them. The Show Cause Notice required the respondents to show cause as to why (i) Central Excise duty (hereinafter referred to as duty ), of ₹ 11,43,09,554/ , evaded on goods cleared clandestinely, either without payment of duty or on short payment of duty, during the period 1st April, 2010 to 15th Ju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctories of Respondents No.1 and 2 . 2. Additionally, the Show Cause Notice required the remaining respondents to show cause against imposition of penalty, under the Rules, for having aided and abetted Respondents No. 1 and 2 in the aforesaid contraventions. 3. Instead of proceeding to adjudication of the aforesaid Show Cause Notice, the petitioners chose to have the matter settled, by moving the Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax Settlement Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Settlement Commission ), under Section 32E of the Act. Vide Final Order dated 2nd September, 2014, the Settlement Commission settled the case, on condition of payment of duty, by Respondents No. 1 and 2, of ₹ 1,56,11,930/ , along with interest of ₹ 44,17,956/ , and penalties of (i) ₹ 5 lakhs each by Respondents No. 1 and 2, (ii) ₹ 2 lakhs by Respondent No. 3, (iii) ₹ 1 lakh each by Respondents No. 5, 6 and 13, (iv) ₹ 50,000/ each by Respondents No. 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 16, and (v) ₹ 20,000/ , each, by Respondents No.14, 15 and 17. Additionally, the Settlement Com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sence of Govind Pareek and Dharmendra, who was stated to have been making entries in the said computers. (ii) Cash, totalling ₹ 58,50,000/-, was recovered from the office-cum-residence premises of Respondents No. 1 and 2 at 246, Gate No. 1, Deepali, Pitampura, Delhi. Raghunath Prasad Kedia, director of Respondents No. 1 and 2, informed that the said cash represented the proceeds against the sale of plywood. Prima facie, it appeared that the removal and sale, against which the cash was received, was clandestine in nature. (iii) Indian currency, totalling ₹ 10,70,000/-, was found in a cupboard in the premises at 2909, Gali No. 4, Chuna Mandi, Paharganj, New Delhi. Shyam Joshi, who was present in the premises, informed that this amount was collected by him, and represented the sale proceeds of unaccounted goods sold by Respondents No.1 and 2. (iv) On comparison of the physical stock of finished goods, found in the premises of Respondent No.1, vis- -vis the recorded balance in the RG-1 register, a shortage of 9166.16 sq. mtrs. of commercial block board, of thickness 19 mm, was found. (v) Persons, who were found in the premises of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... written in abbreviated form, and he decoded the names of some of the said parties. The show cause notice sets out, in paras 4.2.1 to 4.2.3, in detail, how the figures were explained by Mr. Shyam Joshi. (ix) Investigation further revealed that one Surendra Pareek was also closely associated with Manish Kedia, the Director of Respondents No.1 and 2 . Surendra Pareek, in his statement dated 23rd July, 2012, also decoded the entries made in the cash book maintained by them while transacting cash, and confirmed that the figures, in the said book, were entered after dividing the actual amounts by 100. He further deposed that, at times, Respondents No.1 and 2 used to receive and deliver cash by hawala, between Delhi and Mumbai. He explained, in detail, the modus operandi adopted by Respondents No.1 and 2 to evade duty. He informed that, before effecting any clearance from the factories, challan was prepared, with a challan number, assigned on fortnightly basis. Correspondingly, excise invoice was also prepared. In case the goods reached the destination, the invoice was destroyed and a new invoice was prepared. On several occasions, instead of destroying the invoices, the invoic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ched with that mentioned in the sales register. Worked out on square foot basis, it was found that the amount recovered, by Respondents No.1 and 2 was much higher than the amount on which duty was paid. (xii) The fact of clandestine removal and undervaluation was also admitted by Manish Kedia, director of Respondent No.1, in his statement dated 19th July, 2012. He admitted that the amount received, against sale of the finished goods, over and above the price reflected in the invoices, was collected in cash, for which No. 2 records were maintained in the computers, using the FCA software. He admitted that the entire detail of amounts received against finished products, clandestinely removed by the petitioner, were contained in the computer records. Needless to say, the amounts were entered after dividing the correct amounts received, by 100. (xiii) Manish Kedia also expressed his agreement with the statements of Shyam Joshi, Gobind Pareek and Dharmendra, dated 19th July, 2012. He also admitted that the cash, recovered from his residence and from the Paharganj office of Respondent No.1 on 19th July, 2012, were the proceeds of clandestine removal and sale. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods was reflected, in the challans and excise invoices, in sq m whereas in the account slips, the quantities were shown in sq ft . In this manner, he explained, a lower value was reflected in the excise invoices and the differential price was recovered, from the customers, in cash. He submitted that his job was to collect cash payments from the customers and to make cash payments to suppliers, on the direction of Manish Kedia. He also acknowledged that these transactions were recorded in the computers, using FCA Software, in which the figures were reflected after dividing them by one hundred. (xvi) Printouts, from the CPU, of the computers found in the premises as well as from the laptop, were taken by the officers in the presence of Amar Aggarwal. Amar Aggarwal deposed that, in the said printouts, ADP and ADFD represented Respondents No.1 and 2, respectively. He confirmed that the printouts, taken on 3rd October, 2012, reflected the actual clearances from the respective factories, and deposed that the entire scheme of evasion was designed by Manish Kedia, who issued directions regarding the manner in which documents were to be prepared and transactions were to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yer of Respondents No.1 and 2 , similarly deposed, in his statement dated 1st November, 2012, that the prices reflected in the bills raised by Respondents No.1 and 2 were less than the actual value of the goods and that differential payment was made in cash to Shyam Joshi. He also agreed with the statement, dated 19th July, 2012, of Manish Kedia, regarding underinvoicing and receipt of differential amount in cash. He confirmed that, in the challans received from Respondent No.1, value was not reflected. He agreed with the statement, dated 23rd July, 2012, of Surendra Pareek, in which underinvoicing with respect to 1659 pieces of plywood, dispatched under invoice dated 3rd July, 2012, was admitted, inasmuch as, though the actual value of the consignment was ₹ 13,08,309/-, the billed value was ₹ 2,53,854/-. He admitted that the differential amount of ₹ 10,54,455/- was paid in cash to Respondent No.1 after 19th July 2012. (d) Similarly, Deepak Gupta, proprietor of Balaji Industries, confirmed in his statement dated 30th October, 2012, that the invoices raised by Respondent No.1 , on Balaji Industries, reflected a lower value and that differential amount wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd 2 were evading duty by not issuing invoices or issuing invoices reflecting prices lower than the actual value of the goods covered thereby. (xxi) Inasmuch as it was acknowledged, by Manish Kedia that it was impossible to bifurcate the clearances, of Respondents No.1 and 2, as reflected in the computer printouts, Respondents No.1 and 2 could not be treated as separate units and Respondent No.2 appeared, in fact, to be working as an extension of Respondent No.1 , in order to evade payment of duty by suppressing the actual production of both the units. Duty was, therefore, recoverable jointly and severally from Respondents No.1 and 2. (xxii) Para 21 of the Show Cause Notice records, in this regard, thus: 21. Shri Manish Kedia also went through the statements of various buyers and suppliers recorded during the course of investigation and agreed with the contents of the same. In the statement dated 19.07.2012 of Shri Manish Kedia and in the statements of some of his personnel, it was mentioned that M/s ADPL and M/s ADDP were clearing the finished goods i.e. plywoods and other articles either by undervaluing the goods or by clearing the finished goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ely manufactured and cleared goods in cash to their buyers. The cash and/ or sometimes cheques received as payment from buyers were recorded in codes, and same was going to Shri Manish Kedia and Shri Raghunath Prasad Kedia as is evident from the recovery of cash from the residence of the directors at 246, Deepali, Pitampura,New Delhi as well as from Shri Shyam Joshi in their office at Paharganj, who was admittedly collecting cash from their buyers against clearance of finished goods from their both the units. Further, the cash so generated was also paid to suppliers of various raw materials which supplied the raw material again by undervaluing such raw material viz. veneer, chemicals etc.. This further appears to establish the willful and knowing involvement of M/s ADPL, M/s ADDP and Shri Manish Kedia and Shri Ragunath Prasad Kedia who are the masterminds of huge evasion of Central Excise duty by making sales in cash, which were never recorded in the books of account and the details were maintained in private records including computerized data in their secret office. 7. It was, therefore, on the basis of the aforesaid evidence and material, which included statements of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 611/- whereas as per the RUD 10 during the said period total sale comes to ₹ 1,460,586,355/-. (c) As mentioned at para 2.4 of the SCN the total 4 nos. of pressing machines were installed in the premises of the applicant out of which 3 machines having size of 8 x 4 x 10 inches than one machine having size 6 x 4 x 7 inches and as per para 2.5 of the SCN, there were two delite process of 10 and 14 were installed. It has also been mentioned in the same para that the average production time for one lot is approximately one hour including loading and offloading. It is not possible for the applicant to manufacture such a huge quantity as mentioned in the RUD-10. (d) The officers recorded statement from a number of buyers and also of the supplier of ‗Core and ‗Veneer . All of them, in their statements, have stated that they were purchasing/supplying goods from/to the applicant only against bills, however low value of the goods purchased/supplied were mentioned in the bills. Even in the SCN at para 21 it has been categorically mentioned that the investigation revealed that in most of the duty evaded by the applicant and M/s. ADDP was by way of underv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rrect and exorbitant. These submissions, as contained in the settlement application, were denied, as factually incorrect. It was pointed out, in the para-wise comments, that the value of goods had been taken on the basis of available documents, and reference was invited, in this context, to panchnama, dated 19th July, 2012, which indicated that the prices had been adopted from the figures in the price list, dated 15th June, 2012, which had been resumed thereunder. (iii) The assertion, in the settlement application, that the goods seized from the premises of Respondent No. 2, and from the godown of Respondent No.1, were identical, was unacceptable, as the goods seized from the godown of Respondent No.1 were clandestinely removed. (iv) The settlement application further averred that no question had ever been asked to Respondents No.1 and 2 or to other concerned persons, during investigation, regarding the pen drive and computer printouts. This assertion was also incorrect, inasmuch as the pen drive and computer printouts had been recovered/obtained during search proceedings, under panchnama, drawn on the spot, which bore the signatures of independent witnesses. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he statement of Manish Kedia, who admitted that the duty payable by Respondents No.1 and 2 could be computed by deducting the value declared by them, in their ER-I returns, from the actual value of clearances as reflected in the computer printouts. It was on this basis that the differential duty of ₹ 11,43,09,554/-, had been worked out. The attempt, in the settlement application, to limit duty liability to the figures contained in the note books seized under Panchnama on 19th July, 2012 was, therefore, completely misconceived. In view of the above submissions, it was prayed that the settlement application be rejected, as it did not contain a full and true disclosure of duty liability of Respondents No.1 and 2 . 13. The settlement application was allowed to be proceeded with, by the Settlement Commission, whereafter comments were invited, from the petitioners, regarding the manner in which duty liability had been computed, as well as on certain other issues. Detailed submissions, in this regard, were furnished, by the petitioners, on 8th August, 2014 and 26th August, 2014. 14. For the purposes of adjudication of the present writ petition, it is not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts, on the fact that, during visits, physical stock found at various premises was seen to tally with the figures contained in the stock registers. 18. Having recorded the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners and the respondents, the Settlement Commission has proceeded, in the impugned Final Order, to return the following findings (in paras 24.1 to 24.4): 24.1. The Bench observed that the investigation reveals that the bulk of the evasion by the applicant was through under invoicing and only a small part was on account of clandestine sale. However, in the SCN more than 80% of the demand is on account of alleged clandestine sale. 24.2. The Bench observed that the data obtained from computer printouts showing a higher value of goods cleared clandestinely has not been corroborated by any investigation. The entries in the computer printout could easily have been verified to establish clandestine manufacture and removal. This is to be seen particularly in the context of the enquiries with the buyers not revealing any supply of goods without invoice. In fact they have confirmed that the goods were being received against bills but that such bills ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ting authority. He asserts that this was completely beyond the province of jurisdiction of the Settlement Commission, which could not have itself undertaken an analysis of evidence. He emphasises that there was wealth of material, in the Show Cause Notice, to support the demand proposed therein, and stresses the fact that the Settlement Commission could not have rejected the evidence in the form of computer printouts, which were borne out by the statements, not only of the personnel of Respondents No.1 and 2 including Manish Kedia and Raghunath Prasad Kedia but also by the statements of buyers of the clandestinely removed finished products. 21. As a result of the faulty manner in which the Settlement Commission has proceeded, Mr. Aggarwala submits, the Respondents No.1 and 2 have got away with evasion of duty of over ₹ 10 crores, apart from the attendant liability by way of interest and penalty. A full and true disclosure of liability, Mr. Aggarwala emphasises, is the sine qua non for a settlement application to be maintainable, in the very first place, and this requirement is woefully lacking in the present case. 22. Arguing per contra, Mr. Sudhir Malho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mission, the Benches thereof, and the manner in which applications are to be distributed amongst Benches, etc., and are not of particular significance, insofar as the present proceedings are concerned. Section 32E deals with Application for settlement of cases . Sub-section (1), thereof, entitles an assessee to, in respect of a case relating to him, make an application, before adjudication, to the Settlement Commission, to have the case settled. The said sub-section requires, further, that the application contains, inter alia, a full and true disclosure of the duty liability of the assessee, the manner in which such liability has been derived, and the additional amount of excise duty accepted to be payable by him. 28. Section 32F deals with the manner in which the Settlement Commission is to deal with the application, preferred under Section 32E. Sub-section (1) thereof, requires the Settlement Commission to issue a notice, to the applicant, requiring him to explain, in writing, as to why the application be allowed to be proceeded with and, after taking into consideration the explanation provided by the applicant, to pass an order, allowing the application to be proceeded ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it on the matters covered by the application and any other matter relating to the case not covered by the application, but referred to in the report of the Principal Commissioner of Central Excise, or Commissioner of Central Excise and the Commissioner (Investigation) under subsection (3) or sub-section (4). 29. We may note, here, that Section 32F was substituted, in its entirety, by Section 122 of the Finance Act, 2007. As it stood prior to substitution, sub-section (1) of Section 32F read thus: 32F. Procedure on receipt of an application under section 32E. (1) On receipt of an application under subsection (1) of section 32E, the Settlement Commission shall call for a report from the Commissioner of Central Excise having jurisdiction and on the basis of the materials contained in such a report and having regard to the nature and circumstances of the case or the complexity of the investigation involved therein, the Settlement Commission may, by order, allow the application to be proceeded with or reject the application: Provided that an application shall not be rejected under this sub-section, unless an opportunity has been given to the applic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the powers conferred on the Settlement Commission under this Chapter, it shall have all the powers which are vested in a Central Excise Officer under this Act or the rules made thereunder. (2) Where an application made under section 32E has been allowed to be proceeded with under section 32F, the Settlement Commission shall, until an order is passed under sub-section (5) of section 32F, have, subject to the provisions of sub-section (4) of that section, exclusive jurisdiction to exercise the powers and perform the functions of any Central Excise Officer, under this Act in relation to the case. The subjection, of the power so conferred, on the Settlement Commission, to don the mantle of a Central Excise Officer, qua the case before it by Section 32I(1) and (2), to Section 32F(4), is obviously intended to ensure that, buoyed by the said power, the Settlement Commission does not transmute itself into an adjudicating authority, in respect of the case before it. This aspect also stands clarified by judicial pronouncements on the issue, as would become apparent immediately hereinafter. 31. In Picasso Overseas v. Director General of Revenue Intelligence Ju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... would not, ipso facto, result in the Settlement Commission metamorphosing into an adjudicating authority. The powers of a Central Excise Officer , or the powers of the Customs officer , conferred on the Settlement Commission, are so conferred to further its aims and objectives, i.e. to further the process of settlement, and assess whether there has, or has not, been full and true disclosure of liability by the applicant before the Settlement Commission. The Settlement Commission does not, by the conferment of such power, become a parallel adjudicating authority, adjudicating the Show Cause Notice. 32. The above passages, from Picasso Overseas4, have been followed by this Court in more than one case. Relying on Picasso Overseas Judgement dated 3rd August, 2009, in WP (C) 4401/2007, this Court, in U.O.I. v. Dharampal Satyapal 2013 (298) ELT 653 (Del), held thus: The other principle which has been set down in several judgments of this Court is that the Settlement Commission is not a substitute for adjudication proceedings before the central excise authorities and where complex issues of fact and law are involved for which a detailed inquiry is necessary, se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , as substituted by Section 122 of the Finance Act, 2007. This, however, does not, in our view, change the legal position, and amounts, basically, to deletion of a statutory superfluity. Complex issues of fact, or cases in which determination of the liability of the assessee is dependent on detailed appreciation of evidence would, by their very nature, stand excluded from the purview of jurisdiction of the Settlement Commission. We may, incidentally, note that Dharampal Satyapal5 and Shree Flavours LLP6 were both cases arising in the context of the amended Section 32F(1) of the Central Excise Act or, correspondingly, Section 127 (1) of the Customs Act, 1962 after the deletion, therefrom, of the reference to the complexity of the investigation . 35. A perusal of the case, predicated by the respondents before the Settlement Commission, reflects that they questioned the manner in which available evidence had been appreciated, in the Show Cause Notice, dated 16th January, 2013 (supra). The repeated refrain, of the respondents, before the Settlement Commission, was that the evidence in the Show Cause Notice was insufficient to make out a case of clandestine removal or unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of proving, in any prosecution for an offence under this Act, the truth of the facts which it contains, (a) when the person who made the statement is dead or cannot be found, or is incapable of giving evidence, or is kept out of the way by the adverse party, or whose presence cannot be obtained without an amount of delay or expense which, under the circumstances of the case, the Court considers unreasonable; or (b) when the person who made the statement is examined as a witness in the case before the Court and the Court is of opinion that, having regard to the circumstances of the case, the statement should be admitted in evidence in the interests of justice. (2) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to any proceeding under this Act, other than a proceeding before a Court, as they apply in relation to a proceeding before a Court. It has been held, by this Court, in J K Cigarettes Ltd v. C.C.E. 2009 (242) ELT 189, per A. K. Sikri, J. (as he then was), that sub-section (2) of Section 9-D results in the provisions of the said Section becoming applicable, mutatis mutandis, to proceedings before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , would become payable. The extent to which the effect of such evidence could be ignored, in the light of Section 36B of the Act, is also an aspect which could been examined if the respondents choose to subject themselves to adjudication. 41. The manner in which Respondents No.1 and 2 attempted to limit their liability, even while admitting the charge of under invoicing, to the data contained in Diaries Nos 6, 7, 8 and 47, recovered from the Chuna Mandi premises, ignoring, in the process, all the data contained in the computer printouts duly vouchsafed by Respondents No.1 and 2 themselves, during investigation was, in our view, totally impermissible in law. 42. Clandestine removal is, by its very nature, clandestine. Significantly, the expression clandestine removal does not find mention in the Act. The expression is one which has been felicitously coined, over a period of time, to represent clearances of excisable goods, from the factory or other place of removal, in violation of the law, without the knowledge of the authorities. By its very nature, therefore, oftentimes, the only evidence available with the Revenue, to support an allegation of clandestine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the time of search, necessarily indicative of the position as it existed during the period of dispute, and (vi) in the circumstances, the allegation of clandestine removal, which was required to be backed up with evidence of acquisition of input and machinery as well as clandestine manufacture and removal of final products without which it was not possible to fasten, on the respondents, the duty liability of ₹ 11,43,09,554/-, proposed in the Show Cause Notice. 44. In our considered opinion, the Settlement Commission could not have returned these findings, which could only have emerged from a formal adjudicatory process. The findings of the Settlement Commission, amount, in effect, to ignoring the statements of suppliers of raw material, the evidence of the buyers of the finished goods, admissions of various personnel of respondents, including their directors Manish Kedia and his father, Raghunath Prasad Kedia, as well as the computer printouts. The submission, of Respondents No.1 and 2 which was, somewhat disquietingly, endorsed by the Departmental Representative who appeared before the Settlement Commission that the only evidence of clandestine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espondents No.1 and 2 in their defence. The onus to establish that, during the period of dispute, their production capacity was insufficient to maintain the allegation of clandestine removal and under invoicing, as contained in the Show Cause Notice, lay, therefore, squarely on Respondents No.1 and 2 . As no adjudication took place, neither did Respondents No.1 and 2 discharge this onus, nor did any occasion arise, for the Revenue to lead any evidence, or, in any other manner, seek to disprove the same. In these circumstances, we fail to appreciate how the Settlement Commission could have accepted, as gospel truth, the submissions, of Respondents No.1 and 2 , regarding their production capacity, especially as there is not an iota of evidence, cited by the said respondents, regarding the number of machines which were installed in their premises during the period of dispute. 47. The findings recorded in the impugned Final Order, as contained in paras 24.1 to 24.4 thereof (supra), in fact, amount to a truncated adjudication of the Show Cause Notice, without the trappings of the regular adjudicatory process, which would have included admission of the evidence cited in the Show ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (i) The respondents are directed to file their response to the Show Cause Notice, if any, before the appropriate adjudicating authority, within four weeks of pronouncement of this judgment in Court. No extension of time shall be granted, to them, for the said purposes. (ii) In case the authority, to whom the Show Cause Notice was made returnable, has changed during the time that has lapsed since the date of issuance of Show Cause Notice, the designation and address of the competent authority shall be made known, by the petitioners, to learned counsel who has represented the respondents in this writ petition, within 2 days from the date of pronouncement of this judgment. Else, the reply to the Show Cause Notice shall be filed before the authority to whom the respondents have been directed to show cause, therein. (iii) Consequent on receipt of the replies, if any, from the respondents, to the Show Cause Notice, dated 16th January, 2013, the adjudicating authority is directed to proceed to adjudicate the Show Cause Notice with all due expedition, and attempt to conclude the proceedings as early as possible and, in any event, within a period of six months from t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
