TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 199X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... show-cause notice within the time prescribed wherever it is possible to do so. In the present case, from the respondents list of dates, it is apparent that it was certainly possible for the adjudicating authority to adjudicate upon the show-cause notice issued to the petitioner within a period of one year at least from the conclusion of arguments on 03rd February, 2015, if not earlier - Since that has not been done, the present writ petition is liable to be allowed on the short ground of limitation alone. Petition allowed. - W.P.(C) 8675/2017 & C.M.No.35634/2017 - - - Dated:- 17-12-2019 - MR. MANMOHAN AND MS. SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL JJ. Petitioner Through: Mr. J.K. Mittal with Mrs. Vandana Mittal, Advocates. Respondents ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he petitioner. The relevant portion of the written submissions filed by respondent nos. 2 3 is reproduced hereinbelow:- Date Event xxx xxx 21.2.2012 Reply to the SCN is filed by the petitioner. 18.9.2014 The file is re-assigned as per orders dated 14.8.2014 passed by the CC of C.Ex. ST to CCE, Delhi-II for adjudication. 16.1.2015 Personal hearing notice is issued to the petitioner for hearing on 28.1.2015. The petitioner, however, requested for any adjournment and which request was allowed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the said limitation had been violated in the present case. 4. He points out that the Board had issued a Circular No.732/48/2003-CX., dated 05th August, 2003 directing that after the conclusion of personal hearing, it is necessary to communicate the decision immediately or at least one month from the date of the personal hearing. He also points out that the Board had issued instructions F.No.280/45/2015-CX.8A, dated 17 th September, 2015 emphasising that all the adjudicating authorities are directed to pass adjudicating order within the time limit prescribed. 5. He further submits that the Bombay High Court in Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. UOI, 2011 (24) STR 97 (Bom.) has held that if no time limit is prescribed for adjudication, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .L. 515 (Del.) has held as under:- 20. ........Sub-section 4B to Section 73 of the Fin Act fixes the time or limitation period within which the Central Excise Officer has to adjudicate and decide the show cause notice. The time period fixed under Clause A or B is six months and one year, respectively. Limitation period for passing of the adjudication order, described as Order-in-Original, starts from the date of notice under Sub section 1 to Section 73 of the Fin Act. 10. This Court is also of the view that, even if no time period for limitation is prescribed, the statutory authority must exercise its jurisdiction within a reasonable period and if it is not so done, it will vitiate the proceedings. [ See: State of Punjab Vs. Bh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
