TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 28X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No convincing explanation is offered as to why the Department sat over the matter for 18 years. Except saying that they decided on 13th June, 2016 to revive the case in terms of the Board s Circular dated 8th April 2016, there is no convincing answer for the inordinate delay in seeking to revive the proceedings - Also, the Petitioner cannot be expected to preserve its records for these many years and to be able to answer a SCN after 18 years. No effective opportunity of defence can be afforded to the Petitioner in such proceedings. In the present case nothing is indicated in the initial SCN issued on 29th March 2000 to justify the Department invoking the proviso to Section 11-A (1) of the CE Act - the Court finds no justification for the Opposite Parties to revive the adjudication proceedings against the Petitioner 18 years after the issuance of the SCN. Accordingly, the impugned SCN and the notices are hereby quashed. Petition allowed. - Writ Petition (Civil) No.2845 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 24-6-2021 - The Chief Justice And Justice S.K. Panigarhi For the Petitioner : Mr. Jagabandhu Sahoo Senior Advocate For the Opposite Parties : Mr. R.S. Chimanka Senior Standing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther pointed out that the allegation regarding suppression was made solely on the basis of consumption of one of the raw materials i.e. ground nut oil in case of perfumed hair oil and garric powder in case of red tooth powder instead of considering all types of raw materials and packing materials. 6. Treating the above reply dated 3rd March 2000 to be not convincing, the impugned SCN was issued on 29th March, 2000. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the Petitioner responded to the said SCN on 27th April 2000, a copy of which has been enclosed as Annexure-1 to this petition. 7. Thereafter the Petitioner did not hear anything from the Opposite Parties and all of a sudden, more than 17 years later on 28th December, 2017 received a fresh SCN on the same issue with reference to the earlier SCN dated 29th March, 2000 and stating that a personal hearing was fixed on 9th January, 2018. 8. The Petitioner on the same day i.e. on 9th January, 2018 prayed for an adjournment of four weeks as the issue pertains to a very old period and the persons dealing with the matter had already left the company. Efforts were being made to collect information from different sources. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Petitioner was clueless that the adjudication proceeding had been transferred to the call book . 15. It is contended by Mr. Sahoo, learned Senior Counsel that the contention of the Opposite Parties that the same was retrieved from call book on 30th June 2016 was baseless and ought not to be accepted. It is stated that when the main allegation of the SCN was clandestine removal of goods which was a fact based issue, the matter could not have been transferred to the call book on any legal ground. He further submitted that the Petitioner cannot be relegated to the statutory remedy since this was an instance of gross misuse of the provisions of law by the Opposite Parties and the impugned action was in excess of jurisdiction. 16. Mr. Chimanka, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Opposite Parties reiterated the stand taken in the counter affidavit of the Opposite Parties which is that the subject case file was transferred to 'call book' on 29th September, 2000 following A.G. Audit I.R. No.48/95-96 (para-10) which was converted to A.P. Cat-III and the case was retrieved from call book on 30th June 2016, basing on Board's Circular No.1023/11/2016 dated 8th April ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave reasonably expected that the proceedings against it would be kept alive for these many years without any action being taken. Also, the Petitioner cannot be expected to preserve its records for these many years and to be able to answer a SCN after 18 years. No effective opportunity of defence can be afforded to the Petitioner in such proceedings. 20. The legal position regarding delays in initiating and concluding proceedings for recovery of taxes and duties is has been explained in several decisions of the Supreme Court. In Government of India v. Citedal Fine Pharmaceuticals ( supra ), in the context of proceedings for recovery excise duties on medicinal and toilet preparations under Rule 12 of the Medicinal Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Rules, 1956, it was observed: While it is true that Rule 12 does not prescribe any period within which recovery of any duty as contemplated by the Rule is to be made, but that by itself does not render the Rule unreasonable or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. In the absence of any period of limitation it is settled that every authority is to exercise the power within a reasonable period. What would be reasonable per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
