Reasonable time in excise adjudication bars indefinite call-book delay and unsupported revival of show cause proceedings.

Show cause notice proceedings cannot be kept in abeyance indefinitely and later revived without notice or legal justification, because statutory adjudication under section 11A of the Central Excise Act must proceed within a reasonable time and cannot be deferred merely by placing matters in a call book. Where the department remained silent for years, did not communicate any reason, and the delay caused prejudice through closure of the unit and loss of records, revival of the proceedings was unfair and unsustainable. The orders in original were quashed and set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether show cause notice proceedings kept in abeyance for an inordinately long period and later revived without notice or explanation were liable to be quashed for breach of law and natural justice.

Analysis: The proceedings were initiated by show cause notices issued in 2001 and 2004, but after the replies were filed, no effective adjudication took place for years. The matter was kept in the call book without communicating any reason to the petitioners, and it was revived only in 2017. The delay was not shown to have any legal justification, nor was there any indication that adjudication had been lawfully stayed. The reasoning adopted in the earlier decision relied upon in the judgment was that adjudication under section 11A of the Central Excise Act is a statutory quasi-judicial process that must be completed within a reasonable time and cannot be indefinitely deferred by administrative instructions such as keeping matters in the call book. The long silence, closure of the unit, and loss of records and evidence caused serious prejudice and rendered the revival of proceedings unfair.

Conclusion: The revival of the proceedings was held unsustainable, and the orders in original were quashed and set aside.

---