TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 283X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he challenges in the notice may not be traceable. Thus, making it impossible to respond to the notice appropriately. Petition allowed. - Writ Petition No. 1361 of 2019 - - - Dated:- 23-7-2019 - M.S. Sanklecha and S.C. Gupte, JJ. Shri J.C. Patel with Ms. Shilpa Balani and Ms. Shamita Patel i/b A.S. Dayal Associates, for the Petitioner. Shri P.S. Gujar and Pradeep S. Jetly, for the Respondent. ORDER On 27th June, 2019 we passed the following order. 1. Mr. Patel, Learned Counsel appearing in support of the petitioner states that the respondents have been served and he undertakes to file an affidavit of service by 1st July, 2019. 2. This petition under Article 226 challen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petition is now kept for hearing on 11th July, 2019. 6. Parties are put to notice that the petition itself may be disposed of finally at the admission stage. 7. Stand over to 11th July, 2019. 2. Today, Mr. Jetly and Mr. Gujar, Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents very fairly state that the issue arising herein would stand concluded against the Revenue by the decision of this Court in M/s. Sanghvi Reconditioners Pvt. Ltd. (supra). The petitioners herein were co-noticees along with M/s. Sanghvi Reconditioners Pvt. Ltd. for alleged breach of Customs Act, 1962 in the show cause notice dated 28th March, 2002. Moreover, common notices for personal hearing of the show cause notice dated 28th March, 2002 were is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ials 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. 4. It is pertinent to note that in this case, the Revenue has not pointed out any distinction in facts, which would warrant a different view in this case from that taken in M/s. Sanghvi Reconditioners Pvt. Ltd. (supra). We are of the view that long delay in taking up the adjudication of a show cause notice (without sufficient cause), would be indicative of the Revenue having abandoned the show cause notice. As observed by this Court in the above case, this delay in adjudication would cause prejudice to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
