TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 749X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ffer as an explanation for extending the said time limit - In the present case, no explanation has been offered in the written statement which can be held to be a plausible explanation for not adjudicating upon the Show Cause Notice within the time prescribed. No explanation has been offered in the written statement as to why the Show Cause Notice(s) issued in 2009/2010 could not be adjudicated prior to 2018. The present writ petitions are allowed. - CWP No.11860 of 2021 CWP No.11867 of 2021 CWP No.11941 of 2021 - - - Dated:- 15-3-2022 - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Mr. Rajat Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. T.K. Joshi, Advocate for the respondents ORDER PANKAJ JAIN, J. By this judgment, we are deciding the aforesaid three writ petitions involving common question of law which needs to be answered in the light of identical facts. 2. The petitioners are seeking writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of Show Cause Notices issued to them more than 11 years ago and still lying unadjudicated. For the convenience, reference is being made to the facts pleaded in CWP No.11860 of 2021. 3. Petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ral Excise Appeals filed and pending before the Jammu Kashmir High Court in 2018, all the pending Show Cause Notices including the one impugned in the present writ petition has been transferred to Call Book category in terms of Circular No.1053/02/2017-CX dated 10.03.2017, issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes Customs (CBIC), with the approval of the Competent Authority on 20th March, 2019 and thus Show Cause Notices cannot be quashed for non-adjudication. 7. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the present Show Cause Notice(s) were issued in 2009/2010 and despite lapse of more than 11 years, the same have not been adjudicated upon. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon Section 11(A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short, 'the Act') and interpretation thereof by Courts in 'Siddhi Vinayak Syntex Private Limited vs Union of India', 2017 (352) E.L.T. 455; Special Leave Petition (C) No. 18214 of 2017 'Union of India and others vs M/s Siddhi Vinayak Syntex Private Limited', decided on 28.07.2017; 'Parimal Textiles vs. Union of India', 2018(8), GSTL 361 and that of the Supreme Court in 'State of Punjab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the period of one year shall be computed from the date of receipt of information under sub-section (2). (4) Where any duty of excise has not been levied or paid or has been short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded, by the reason of- (a) fraud; or (b) collusion; or (c) any wilful mis-statement; or (d) suppression of facts; or (e) contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or of the rules made thereunder with intent to evade payment of duty, by any person chargeable with the duty, the Central Excise Officer shall, within five years from the relevant date, serve notice on such person requiring him to show cause why he should not pay the amount specified in the notice along with interest payable thereon under section 11AA and a penalty equivalent to the duty specified in the notice. ((5) to (7) xx xx xx) (7A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or sub-section (3) or sub-section (4), the Central Excise Officer may, serve, subsequent to any notice or notices served under any of those sub-sections, as the case may be, a statement, containing the details of duty of central excise not levied or paid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, Gujarat High Court had set aside the order passed after a long delay in pursuance to the show cause notice issued. 15. The judgment of Gujarat High Court was challenged by the revenue before Hon'ble the Supreme Court by filing Special Leave Petition (C) No. 18214 of 2017 Union of India and others vs M/s Siddhi Vinayak Syntex Private Limited, in which notice has been issued only to the extent as to whether Circular No. 162/73/95-CX dated 14.12.1995, issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, is in conformity/ authorized by the provisions of Section 37-B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The order on merit has been upheld vide order dated 28.7.2017. 16. The view expressed in M/s Siddhi Vinayak Syntex Private Limited's case (supra) was subsequently followed by Gujarat High Court in Parimal Textiles' case (supra), where again belated order passed after issuing show cause notice, was set aside. 17. Section 11A(11) of the Act provides that Cental Excise Officer shall determine the amount of duty within six months in case notice has been under Sub-section 1 thereof, whereas in the ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
