TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court quashes show cause notices due to time limit, emphasizing timely adjudication and disapproving delays.</h1> <h3>M/s. Steel Authority of India Limited. Versus Office of the Assistant Commissioner of GST and Central Excise Salem I Division, Superintendent of Central Excise, Commissioner of GST and Central Excise No. 1, The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) Department of Revenue Ministry of Finance</h3> M/s. Steel Authority of India Limited. Versus Office of the Assistant Commissioner of GST and Central Excise Salem I Division, Superintendent of Central ... Issues Involved:1. Bar of Limitation2. Audit Objections3. Transfer to Call Book4. Delay in AdjudicationDetailed Analysis:1. Bar of Limitation:The petitioner, a unit of Steel Authority of India Limited, challenged six show cause notices (SCNs) on the ground of limitation under Section 11A(11) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The SCNs were issued between 1999 and 2001, and the petitioner argued that the delay in adjudication contravened the statutory time limits. The court noted that the statutory period for completion of proceedings was six months from the date of the notice, as far as possible, under sub-section (11) of Section 11A. The court concluded that the pendency of the SCNs for over 21 years was unjustifiable and unreasonable, thus barring the proceedings by limitation.2. Audit Objections:The audit objections were raised on the grounds of shortfall in demand and incorrect dropping of proceedings. The court examined the detailed objections and the responses provided by the assessing authorities. The objections included issues such as duty short demanded for coin blanks and MODVAT credit availed for exempted final products. The court found that the assessing authorities had defended their positions but noted that the audit objections led to the issuance of SCNs on a protective basis.3. Transfer to Call Book:The SCNs were transferred to the call book between 1999 and 2001, following the completion of the statement of fact verification (SFV). The court referred to various circulars issued by the Board, which provided for the transfer of cases to the call book under specific circumstances, including contested audit objections. However, the court emphasized that such transfer should not be used to protract proceedings indefinitely. The court highlighted that the 2017 Circular had removed contested audit objections from the categories warranting transfer to the call book, recognizing the potential for unjustified delays.4. Delay in Adjudication:The court scrutinized the delay in adjudication, noting that the hearing notices were issued for the first time only in 2020. The court observed that there was no commitment from the authority on when the proceedings would be closed, despite communication in 2003 indicating that the SCNs would be decided on merits at the appropriate time. The court concluded that the delay of over two decades was unacceptable and that the revival of the SCNs in 2020 was unjustifiable.Conclusion:The court upheld the challenge to the SCNs on the ground of limitation and quashed the impugned proceedings. The writ petitions were allowed, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed. The court emphasized the need for timely adjudication and criticized the use of the call book to indefinitely delay proceedings.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
