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 Delayed Customs Bill Notices</h1> <h3>Golden Enterprises, Super Oil Company, Ludhiana Refineries Versus Commissioner Of Customs And Another</h3> Golden Enterprises, Super Oil Company, Ludhiana Refineries Versus Commissioner Of Customs And Another - 2022 (379) E.L.T. 334 (P & H) Issues Involved:1. Quashing of show cause notices for finalization of provisionally assessed bills of entry after 8-9 years.2. Applicability of Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962.3. Reliance on Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.4. Timeliness and legality of adjudication proceedings.5. Transfer of proceedings to the call book and its implications.Detailed Analysis:1. Quashing of Show Cause Notices for Finalization of Provisionally Assessed Bills of Entry:The petitioners sought quashing of show cause notices issued for finalizing provisionally assessed bills of entry after a delay of 8-9 years. The court noted that the bills of entry were filed 8-9 years ago and there was no pending petition or stay order from any court. The delay in finalizing assessments was deemed unreasonable and unjustified.2. Applicability of Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962:The respondents argued that the bills of entry were provisionally assessed under Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962, and that there is no prescribed limitation period for final assessments under this section. However, the court found this argument unconvincing, especially in the absence of a stay order from higher courts.3. Reliance on Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944:The petitioners relied on Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which prescribes a six-month period for concluding proceedings in normal cases and one year in cases involving fraud or collusion. The court referred to previous judgments, including those in Gupta Smelter Pvt. Ltd. and M/s GPI Textiles Limited, which emphasized the importance of adhering to these timelines.4. Timeliness and Legality of Adjudication Proceedings:The court discussed the significance of timely adjudication. It cited the Gujarat High Court's judgment in Siddhi Vinayak Syntex Private Limited, which held that delays in concluding proceedings without proper explanation are unlawful and arbitrary. The court reiterated that the legislative intent behind Section 11A is to ensure timely adjudication, and prolonged delays without valid reasons violate this intent.5. Transfer of Proceedings to the Call Book and Its Implications:The respondents argued that the delays were due to the transfer of proceedings to the call book, as per Circular No. 1023/11/2016-CX. However, the court found that the concept of the call book, as created by the Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC), was contrary to the statutory mandate. The court emphasized that the CBEC does not have the authority to extend the statutory time limits by transferring cases to the call book.Conclusion:The court concluded that the issues in the present petitions were covered by previous judgments, particularly those in M/s GPI Textiles Limited and Gupta Smelters Pvt. Ltd. The impugned notices for framing final assessments were quashed in all cases, reaffirming the importance of timely adjudication and adherence to statutory timelines.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
