9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1731X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nbsp; Pending hearing and final disposal of the present petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to restrain the Respondents, their servants and agents from taking any action against the Petitioner including any coercive recovery pursuant to OIO No. AHM-CUSTM-000-COM-001-18-19, dated 10-4-2018 (Annexure-"D") thereby staying implementation and execution of this adjudication order dated 10-4-2018; (d) An ex parte ad interim relief in terms of para 18(C) above may kindly be granted." 2. The issue involved in this petition is short and in order to appreciate the same, few relevant facts need mention hereinbelow : 2.1 On January, 2002, the petitioner was allowed to set up a 100% Exported Oriented Undertaking in the name of "Western Silks" for manufacturing silk yarn out of raw mulberry silk. The petitioner imported certain consignments of raw mulberry silk free of Customs duty for manufacturing Silk Yarn. 2.2 On 29-10-2002, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (for short "DRI"), Ahmedabad Zonal Unit conducted enquiry at the petitioner's unit and seized various documents, files etc. under a panchnama. The petitioner in the month o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ause notice dated 29-12-2003 and held that there was no time limit laid down under the Act for concluding adjudication proceedings. Hence, present petition. 3. We have heard Mr. Paresh M. Dave, Learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Nirzar Desai, Learned Advocate for the Respondent No. 2. 4. Mr. Paresh M. Dave, Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the show cause notice was issued on 29-12-2003 and thereafter, no adjudication proceedings were conducted or concluded by the concerned Authority within a reasonable period and after a very long period of 14 years, the case was taken up for adjudication by the Authority. There was no reason for the respondent Authority to not complete the adjudication of the show cause notice and therefore, the action reviving the adjudication of the case that was kept pending for [more] than 14 years is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. He further submitted that the issue involved in the present petition is no longer res integra and the show cause notice issued by the respondent is in clear breach of the statutory mandate of Section 11A(11) of the Customs Act and can no longer be sustained. In support ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reply/written submissions in respect of the said show cause notice. Thereafter, on 10-4-2018, after a period of 14 years, the respondent passed the order by confirming the demand against the petitioners without considering the replies made by the petitioner from time to time. The act on the part of the respondents of keeping the impugned show cause notice in call book for unduly long period, without disclosing cogent reason for delay is arbitrary in exercise of powers and is also in violation of provisions of Section 11A of the Customs Act. It would in our opinion vitiate the entire proceedings. 8. Similar issue raised for consideration before this Court in the cases of M/s. Siddhi Vinayak Syntex Pvt. Ltd. (supra), more particularly Paras 23 and 24, which read as under : "23. Insofar as the show cause notice in the instant case is concerned, the same has been issued under Section 11A of the Act. Proceedings under Section 11A of the Act are adjudicatory proceedings and the authority which decides the same is a quasi-judicial authority. Such proceedings are strictly governed by the statutory provisions. Section 11A of the Act as it stood at the relevant time when the sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... consigned to the call book and kept in cold storage for years together, it is not on account of it not being possible for the authority to decide the case, but on grounds which are extraneous to the proceedings. In the opinion of this court, when the 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 instructions under any statutory provision, inasmuch as, neither Section 37B of the Central Excise Act nor Rule 31 of the rules, envisage issuance of such directions. The concept of call book is, therefore, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The ground of alternative remedy is also does not impress this Court in any manner, as there is clear violation of principles of natural justice, which cannot be overlooked by any authority, therefore, this ground is also not available to respondent. 12. Learned Counsel for the respondent attempted to develop the ground for resisting this petition based upon plea of prejudice. We are of the view that said ground would also not be available to the respondent, as notice dated 22-8-2002 had not been acted for long period of 17 years, that in itself is sufficient to accept and justify the plea of prejudice without any further probing into the matter. The resurrection of notice dated 22-8-2002 assuming for the sake of convenience without admitting that was admittedly after subsequent notice, then also, in view of established principles of law and provisions of statute, the said resurrection would be not permissible in light of decisions cited hereinabove." 10. In our view, the issue involved in this petition is therefore, squarely covered by the decisions of this Court and the impugned show cause notice dated 29-12-2003 cannot be permitted to be processed further and order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
