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 after 18-year delay, citing lack of justification for revival.</h1> <h3>M/s. Maxcare Laboratories Ltd. Versus Joint Commissioner, CGST, Central Excise and Customs, Bhubaneswar and others</h3> M/s. Maxcare Laboratories Ltd. Versus Joint Commissioner, CGST, Central Excise and Customs, Bhubaneswar and others - 2021 (378) E.L.T. 401 (Ori.) Issues:Challenge to show cause notices issued by the Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs; Time-barred proceedings after a gap of 18 years; Transfer of case to 'call book' and subsequent revival after a long delay.Analysis:The writ petition challenges show cause notices issued by the Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs, proposing a demand of excise duty for alleged suppression of production and removal of goods without payment. The petitioner, a company manufacturing perfumed hair oil and red tooth powder, argued that the notices were time-barred after 18 years, citing various legal precedents to support their claim of illegality and arbitrariness due to the extended delay in proceedings.The petitioner contended that no further communication was received after their response to the initial notice in 2000, assuming the matter concluded. However, in 2017, a fresh notice was issued, leading to subsequent requests for adjournments due to the old period in question and unavailability of relevant personnel. The court noted the lack of justification for the lengthy delay, emphasizing the importance of timely action and reasonable periods for proceedings in tax recovery matters.Regarding the transfer of the case to the 'call book' and its revival after 18 years, the court found the actions of the Opposite Parties unreasonable and contrary to established circulars for expeditious disposal of show cause notices. The court highlighted the need for a positive demonstration of fraud or suppression of facts to sustain demands beyond the standard limitation periods under Section 11-A of the Central Excise Act, which was not evident in this case.Citing relevant legal precedents, the court quashed the impugned show cause notices and subsequent actions, emphasizing that the revival of adjudication proceedings after such a prolonged delay lacked justification. The writ petition was allowed, with no order as to costs, based on the unreasonable delay and lack of legal grounds for the revival of proceedings after 18 years.In conclusion, the court's decision was based on the principles of timeliness, legal justifications for reviving proceedings, and the need for a positive demonstration of fraudulent intent or suppression of facts to sustain demands beyond standard limitation periods in tax recovery matters. The court's ruling emphasized the importance of adherence to legal procedures and timely actions in such cases to ensure fairness and effective defense opportunities for the parties involved.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
