Section 73(4B) adjudication timeline is directory where delay is explained by the noticee's conduct and proceeding circumstances.

Section 73(4B) of the Finance Act, 1994 was held to be directory to the extent qualified by the words "where it is possible to do so", so the prescribed adjudication period did not operate as an inflexible bar. Where the noticee had received repeated notices, failed to respond earlier, and replied only at the final stage, the subsequent order-in-original passed within about three months was not invalid for delay. The challenge on limitation therefore failed and the appeal was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order-in-original was invalid for having been passed beyond the period prescribed under Section 73(4B) of the Finance Act, 1994.

Analysis: Section 73(4B) prescribes that adjudication should ordinarily be completed within the stipulated time, but the provision is couched with the qualifying words "where it is possible to do so", indicating that the time frame is intended to curb avoidable delay and executive lethargy rather than operate as an inflexible bar in every case. The record showed repeated notices and opportunities, non-response by the appellant to earlier communications, and a reply only at the last stage, after which the order-in-original was passed within about three months. On these facts, no delay of the kind prohibited by the statutory scheme was established.

Conclusion: The challenge to the order-in-original on limitation failed, and the appeal was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: The time limit in Section 73(4B) of the Finance Act, 1994 is directory in operation to the extent qualified by "where it is possible to do so", and a delayed adjudication is not invalid where the delay is justified by the conduct of the noticee and the circumstances of the proceedings.

---