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>Authority violates section 11A(11) time limits by delaying adjudication seven years beyond prescribed one-year period</h1> <h3>M/s. Kopertek Metals Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST (West) New Delhi</h3> M/s. Kopertek Metals Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST (West) New Delhi - TMI Issues Involved:1. Whether the determination of duty by the Central Excise Officer was made beyond the prescribed period under section 11A of the Central Excise Act.2. Whether the provisions of section 36B regarding electronic evidence were adhered to.3. Whether the provisions of section 9D concerning the relevance of statements were complied with.Issue-Wise Analysis:1. Determination of Duty Beyond Prescribed Period:The primary issue was whether the Central Excise Officer determined the amount of duty within the period stipulated under sub-section (11) of section 11A of the Central Excise Act. The appellants contended that the adjudication was not completed within the statutory time limit, which was either six months or one year from the date of the show cause notice, depending on the circumstances. The Tribunal examined the timeline of events and concluded that the adjudication process extended far beyond the prescribed period without any plausible justification. The Tribunal emphasized that the phrase 'where it is possible to do so' provides flexibility only in cases of insurmountable exigencies, which were not demonstrated in this case. The Tribunal referred to various judgments, including those from the Delhi High Court and Bombay High Court, which highlighted that the statutory time limit is not merely directory but carries an obligation to adhere to it unless justified by compelling circumstances. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders due to the failure to adjudicate within the statutory period.2. Admissibility of Electronic Evidence:Although the second issue raised concerned the adherence to section 36B of the Central Excise Act regarding electronic evidence, the Tribunal did not delve into this issue. Since the first issue was decided in favor of the appellants, leading to the setting aside of the impugned orders, it was deemed unnecessary to examine the compliance with section 36B.3. Relevance of Statements Under Section 9D:Similarly, the third issue pertained to the compliance with section 9D of the Central Excise Act, which relates to the relevance of statements under certain circumstances. As with the second issue, the Tribunal refrained from examining this issue due to the resolution of the primary issue regarding the time limit for adjudication.Conclusion:The Tribunal allowed the appeals, setting aside the impugned orders due to the failure to complete the adjudication within the statutory time limit prescribed under section 11A of the Central Excise Act. The decision was based on the lack of any plausible justification for the delay, as the statutory time limit is intended to prevent uncertainty and ensure timely adjudication. Consequently, it was unnecessary to address the other two issues related to electronic evidence and the relevance of statements.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
