9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 1326X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... You missed the starting gun ......" -Pink Floyd, Time (The Dark Side of the Moon) 1. The short issue that calls for determination by this Court is whether a show cause notice issued by the Customs Department, which has remained unadjudicated for a long period of time, in excess of ten years, in the present case, should be quashed only on such ground ? 2. Heard learned advocate Ms. Himanshi Patwa for learned advocate Mr. Anandodaya Mishra for the Petitioners and learned advocate Mr. Ankit Shah for the Respondent No. 1 and learned advocate Mr. C.B. Gupta for the Respondent No. 2. 3. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr. Ankit Shah waives service of notice of rule for the Respondent No. 1 and learned advocate Mr. C.B. Gupta wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 08.03.2010, stating that the Petitioners wrongfully availed the benefits under the DEPB Scheme and thus, proposed the confiscation of goods under the shipping bill No. 1393015, dated 14.09.2009. 4.5 The Petitioners have deposited Rs. 75,00,000/- as a pre-deposit amount towards the protection of revenue interest, as directed by the DRI authorities. 4.6 DRI issued the second Show Cause Notice dated 03.11.2011 under Section 111 (o) read with Section 28 of the Customs Act,1962, for the past exports of the product "Acid Black 210", and suggested that, all such exports were based on mis-declaration and accordingly sought the recovery of the benefits availed. The demand for recovery of the entire DEPB availed for period commencing from April 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esponding to the DEPB schedule and rates, the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade by the order-in-original dated 10.07.2013, clearly adjudicated and found that the Petitioners have not resorted to any mis-declaration or mis-classification of their products as alleged and have correctly availed the DEPB benefits under the same, for all their exports from April 2005 to April 2010, for "Acid Black 210". 4.11 The Petitioners submitted that, accordingly, the later parallel proceedings so undertaken by the office of the Foreign Trade Development Authorities were accordingly concluded entirely in favour of the Petitioners, on the identical issue sought to be adjudicated by the Customs Department. 4.12 The Petitioners further submitted that, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oners, with costs. Amendment carried out as per Court's order dated 23.08.2024. "AA. That Your Lordships be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in nature of writ of mandamus and or writ of certiorari and or any other appropriate writ or direction, quashing and setting aside the 2 Show Cause Notices F.No. DRI/AZU/INV-45/2009 dated 08.03.2010 & 03.11.2011 at Annexure A and B, issued by Respondent No.3 i.e. DRI being without jurisdiction as DRI not being a "proper officer" under the Customs Act, 1962." B) That Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a Writ of Prohibition or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, completely and permanently prohibiting the Respondents, their servants and agents from taking ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vocate, relied upon the recent decision of this Court dated 30.01.2025 passed in Special Civil Application No. 18262 of 2022 and allied matters in the case of M/s. Dhultawala Exim Private Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Anr. to submit that the aforesaid show cause notices ought to be quashed as having been left unadjudicated over a very large period of time. 6. Mr. Ankit Shah and Mr. C.B. Gupta, learned advocates appearing for the respective respondents are not able to contradict the applicability of the decision of this Court in M/s. Dhultawala Exim (Supra) to the facts of the present case. 7. DISCUSSION & FINDINGS:- 7.1 This Court finds that the notice issued by the Joint Director General Foreign Trade, Ahmedabad is substantially similar to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lay, is not merely a matter of impropriety; the respondents were under the duty to disclose what compulsions held up the adjudicatory process for so long. In absence of such explanation, the revival of the proceedings would be unlawful and arbitrary.; (iv) The Hon'ble Orissa High Court, in the case of, M/s. Maxcare Laboratories Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner, CGST, Central Excise, Customs, Bhubaneswar and others reported in [W.P(C) 2845 of 2020 dated 24.06.2021], held that revival of the proceedings after an inordinate delay is contrary to the concept of speedy disposal of SCN, when proper reason for the delay is not provided. 8. The impugned SCNs have remained pending for more than 15 years and 13 years respectively. Considering the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
