Call book delay and natural justice bar revival of a decades-old excise show-cause notice.

A show-cause notice kept in the call book for nearly 29 years could not be lawfully revived where the record did not show the conditions required by CBIC circulars, including prior Commissioner approval, notice to the assessee, or periodic review. Section 11A(11) of the Central Excise Act was read as requiring determination within the prescribed period where possible, and not as permitting revival after an inordinate, unexplained lapse of decades. The delay was held to offend procedural fairness and natural justice, making the revived show-cause notice and personal hearing notices unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the revival and adjudication of a show-cause notice kept pending for nearly 29 years, along with consequential notices for personal hearing, was sustainable in law in view of the call book procedure and the mandate of section 11A(11) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis: The impugned show-cause notice had been kept in the call book on the stated ground that proceedings were sub judice, but the record did not establish satisfaction of the conditions prescribed in the CBIC circulars for such transfer. There was no material to show prior approval of the jurisdictional Commissioner, no communication to the noticee about transfer to the call book, and no showing of periodic review as required by the circulars. Even assuming some pendency up to the Supreme Court decision in 2004, there was no explanation for the subsequent long inaction. Section 11A(11) requires determination of duty within the prescribed period where it is possible to do so, and the Court held that this cannot be stretched to permit revival after an inordinate and unexplained lapse of decades. Such delay defeats procedural fairness and causes serious prejudice, offending natural justice.

Conclusion: The revival of the show-cause proceedings after 29 years was unsustainable and the impugned show-cause notice and personal hearing notices were liable to be quashed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded because the proceedings were vitiated by inordinate and unexplained delay, and the adjudicatory action could not lawfully continue.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a tax adjudication notice is kept pending without lawful call book transfer, periodic review, or timely revival, a decades-long delay in adjudication is contrary to the requirement of action within a reasonable time and violates natural justice.

---