Delay in adjudication of excise notices can render them unsustainable when pendency remains unexplained.

Section 11A(11) of the Central Excise Act requires show cause notice adjudication to be completed within the stipulated time where possible, and that qualifier cannot justify indefinite pendency. The Punjab & Haryana HC held that prolonged non-adjudication over several years, supported only by transfer of the matter to the call book, was not a cogent legal impediment or plausible explanation for delay. Applying the earlier binding view on delay in adjudication, the Court found the notices unsustainable and quashed them for inordinate delay.

---

---

Issues: Whether the show cause notices were liable to be quashed on the ground of inordinate delay in adjudication.

Analysis: Section 11A(11) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 prescribes that adjudication of a show cause notice is to be completed within the stipulated time where possible. The Court held that the expression allowing completion where possible cannot be stretched to permit indefinite pendency. On the facts, the notices had remained pending for years, and the only explanation offered was transfer to the call book, which was not treated as a cogent legal impediment or a plausible justification for the prolonged non-adjudication. Applying the earlier binding view on delay in adjudication, the Court concluded that such unexplained delay made the notices unsustainable.

Conclusion: The show cause notices were quashed for inordinate delay in adjudication and the petitioner succeeded on this ground.

---