TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 1166X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to Section 73(4B) of the Finance Act, 1994 and the said provision of the Finance Act, 1994 has been analysed by this Court in paragraphs 14 to 19 in the case of COVENTRY ESTATES PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE JOINT COMMISSIONER CGST AND CENTRAL EXCISE ANR. [ 2023 (8) TMI 352 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ] wherein, similar provision considered to highlight the time frame for adjudication. In the light of the decision of this Court, the submission made by the Respondents that there is no time-limit in adjudication of show cause notice ought to be rejected. Even otherwise, in the absence of Section 28(2A) of the the Customs Act, the adjudication proceedings have to be completed within a reasonable period and in the facts of the present case, pending ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act that an Order-in-Original (O-I-O) is passed imposing customs duty, penalty, interest, etc. on the Petitioner. (iii) On 6th September 2022 and 4th October 2022, the Petitioner requested Respondent No. 2 to provide copy of the O-I-O dated 7th June 2022 and the show cause notice dated 7th May 1997, pursuant to which impugned order was passed, since the Petitioner had no records or documents pertaining to the said proceedings, considering that more than 25 years have elapsed from the date of the notice. (iv) On 11th October 2022, the Petitioner fled the present petition challenging the Order-in-Original dated 7th June 2022. (v) On 5th November 2022, Respondent No. 2 furnished to the Petitioner a show cause notice dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tated that since the O-I-O dated 7th June 2022 has been quashed in its entirety against all the co-noticees including Petitioner herein, the present petition does not survive. 6. Analysis: Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the Respondents and with the assistance of the parties, have perused the record of the present petition. 7. The Respondents have submitted that in the light of order dated 7th September 2022 in Writ Petition (L) No. 17715 of 2022, the O-I-O dated 7th June 2022, which is impugned in the present petition, has been quashed and set aside against all the co-noticees, including the present Petitioner and the matter is remanded to Respondent No. 2 for de novo consideration. The effect of this submission is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e submission is considered then for the period 2000 to 2020, no steps were taken by the Respondents to complete the adjudication proceedings by issuing any notices. The Respondents have also not explained the intervening period between 2000 to 2020 for not adjudicating the show cause notice. In our view, even if the Petitioner did not attend to the personal hearing granted in the year 1999 and 2000 and during the period 2020 to 2022, the same did not prevent the Respondents to pass an ex-parte order bringing to an end the adjudication proceedings. This Court, in the case of Premiere Ltd. vs. Union of India 2017 (354) E.L.T. 365 (Bom.) , has quashed the show cause notice for failure of the adjudicating authority to adjudicate upon the sam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation of show cause notice for a period of 25 years cannot be said to be a reasonable period. 11. Looking from any angle, the show cause notice dated 7th May 1997, in the facts of the present case, is required to be quashed and set aside. 12. Even assuming that the order in Writ Petition (L) No. 17715 of 2022, dated 7th September 2022 is passed in the case of Biyani Silk Mills only and not in the case of the Petitioner, even then, the impugned O-I-O dated 7th June 2022 against the Petitioner deserves to be quashed and set aside. The Petitioner has stated that the notices issued in the year 2020 and 2022 have not been served and the order is passed contrary to the principle of natural justice. The Respondents, in their affidavit-in-rep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
