9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 1166X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act"). By the said order, Respondent No. 2 has confirmed the demand of Rs. 26,26,192/- on the Petitioner under proviso to Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 and also imposed penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962. Respondent No. 2 has also confiscated the goods imported by the Petitioner and has given an option to redeem the goods on payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- under Section 125(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. 3. Narrative of the relevant events :- (i) The Petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacturing home textile products such as towels, bed sheets, bed linen etc. (ii) In an around August 2022, the Petitioner was informed by one of the co-noticees to the proceedings under the Act that an Order-in-Original (O-I-O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oticees assessees and one of the assessee namely Biyani Silk Mills has challenged the same before this Court in Writ Petition (L) No. 17715 of 2022 and order was passed on 7th September 2022 quashing and setting aside the O-I-O and the matter was remanded back to Respondent No. 2 for de novo consideration. Pursuant to the said order, Respondents furnished certain documents to Biyani Silk Mills, who again fled a fresh Writ Petition (L) No. 35455 of 2022, challenging the said course of action. This Court issued rule and pending the hearing and final disposal of the petition stayed further proceedings pursuant to the impugned show cause notice dated 7th May 1997. The Respondents stated that since the O-I-O dated 7th June 2022 has been quashed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Jt. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise Writ Petition No. 4082 of 2022, by order dated 25th July 2023 in paragraph 25, has rejected a very similar explanation given by the Revenue. Therefore, we do not accept such reason to be any justification for delaying the adjudication of the show cause notice for a long period of 25 years. 8. The Respondents have also stated that hearing was granted on 4th February 1999, 5th March 1999, 23rd March 1999 and 23rd November 2000, but the Petitioner did not appear. The Respondents further stated that in the year 2020 and 2022 also the Petitioner was granted personal hearing, which was not attended. In our view, even if above submission is considered then for the period 2000 to 2020, no steps were taken ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he 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. (supra) wherein, we have considered similar provision 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. 10. 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 our view, in the facts of the present case, pending adjudication of show cause notice for a period of 25 years cannot be said to be a reasonable period ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
