2017 (6) TMI 1235 - HC - Central Excise

Court quashes show cause notice due to undue delay, upholding natural justice

The Court allowed the petition, quashing the show cause notice dated 27-12-1995. Citing precedent and considering the undue delay in reviving the ... Condonation of delay - reviving and/or restarting the proceedings under the stale show cause notice dated 27-12-1995 - whether such revival is permitted or not? - Held that:- The Court need not elaborately dwell much upon any other aspect, as the entire controversy is covered by the observations of this Court rendered in case of Siddhi Vinayak Syntex Pvt. Ltd. [2017 (3) TMI 1534 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] relying upon the Supreme Court judgments, where it was held that Revival of proceedings after a long time gap without any proper explanation therefor, is unlawful and arbitrary - petition allowed. Issues Involved:Challenge to show cause notice dated 27-12-1995; Revival of adjudication proceedings after a significant delay.Analysis:1. Challenge to Show Cause Notice: The petitioners, engaged in manufacturing textile machinery, challenged a show cause notice dated 27-12-1995 demanding excise duty on accessories supplied with textile machines. The notice was based on an earlier notice from 1994, which was adjudicated differently. The petitioners argued that the proceedings were terminated earlier, and the revival after more than 20 years was unjustified. They sought writs of prohibition, mandamus, and certiorari to prevent further action and quash the notice.2. Revival of Adjudication Proceedings: The Court considered the delay in reviving the show cause notice and the impact on the interest of justice. The petitioners relied on a previous judgment highlighting that reviving proceedings based on a stale notice is impermissible. The respondents argued against a blanket rule to quash notices due to delay, emphasizing the absence of malafide intent by the noticees. The Court, referring to previous decisions, concluded that the revival of the notice after a significant delay was unjust and against the interest of justice.3. Judgment: The Court allowed the petition, quashing the show cause notice dated 27-12-1995. Citing the precedent and considering the undue delay in reviving the proceedings, the Court found in favor of the petitioners. The judgment highlighted the importance of timely and justified actions by authorities, ensuring fairness and upholding the principles of natural justice. The ruling set aside the notice, providing relief to the petitioners and emphasizing the need for procedural propriety and adherence to legal principles in such matters.