9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 1163X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ties, both the petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by common order. Facts in Writ Petition No. 1194 of 2022 :- 2. By Writ Petition No. 1194 of 2022 filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the Show Cause Notice F.No.V.Adj(30)/Kurla/CR-67/Commr/2005/M.II/409 dated 17th February, 2006 and seeks writ of prohibition to prohibit the respondents from adjudicating the said show cause notice against the petitioner. 3. Ms. Bhargava, learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to various show cause notices annexed to the petition and would submit that there was no communication from the respondents since 17th February, 2006 in respect of the said show cause notice and submits that the respondent ought to have adjudicated upon the said show cause notice expeditiously. The petitioner cannot be made to suffer because of the delay on the part of the respondent no.2 in proceeding with the said show cause notice. 4. It is submitted that the petitioner was never informed about the objection raised by the department to the query raised by the office of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... per circular dated 14th December, 1995. 9. It is submitted that the Central Board of Excise & Customs vide letter dated 16th January, 2017 communicated that the audit had accepted the objection raised by the department and action be taken accordingly. The respondents accordingly removed the said show cause notice from the call book in the month of April 2017. However, due to implementation of Goods & Service Tax Act from 1st July, 2017, there was re-organisation of whole Central Excise department to Central Goods & Service Tax department and thus the files were transferred from one place to another and thus there was delay since 2017. He submits that there was no deliberate delay on the part of the respondents. There is no definite time limit prescribed for adjudication of show cause notice. 10. It is submitted that the petitioner was issued a letter on 19th February, 2019 for granting opportunity of personal hearing. The department had filed Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 19492 of 2019 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India against order dated 10th January, 2019 passed by the Gujarat High Court in Special Civil Application No. 16157 of 2018 in the matter of Apollo Tyres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not been adjudicated upon for about 16 years. We have perused the affidavit-in-reply filed by the Respondent. In the affidavit-in-reply, the Respondents have not alleged that the Petitioner was informed about the show-cause notice having been kept in call book at any point of time. 16. If the Respondent would have informed the Petitioner about the said show cause notice in the year 2005 itself, having been kept in call book, the Petitioner would have immediately applied for appropriate reliefs by filing the appropriate proceedings. It is not expected from the assessee to preserve the evidence/record intact for such a long period to be produced at the time of hearing of the Show-Cause Notice. The Respondent having issued the Show-Cause notice, it is their duty to take the said Show-Cause notice to its logical conclusion by adjudicating upon the said Show-Cause Notice within a reasonable period of time. In view of the gross delay on the part of the Respondent, the Petitioner cannot be made to suffer. The principles of law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of The Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Company Limited (supra) and judgments referred above apply to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndent no.2 issued a show cause notice alleging that the petitioner with the intent to evade payment of duty, failed to include advertisement expenses in the assessable value and thereby had contravened the provisions of Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 6 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 and for demanding penalty thereon. On 26th September, 2007, the petitioner replied to the said impugned notice. On 22nd November, 2007, the petitioner addressed a letter to the respondent no.3 stating that on the same issue, for the period from July 2000 to December 2005, the Central Excise and Service Tax Tribunal (for short 'CESTAT') had allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner by order dated 11th October, 2007 and requested the respondent no.3 to quash the proceedings. 21. On 27th July, 2007, 18th January, 2006, 28th September, 2005, 29th April, 2005, 30th September, 2004 and 25th April, 2005, the respondents issued six other show cause notices to the petitioner. All those show cause notices were duly replied by the petitioner on 26th September, 2007, 25th August, 2006, 29th September, 2005 in respect of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th show notice. In respect of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
