https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=78342 The High Court interpreted the phrase "where it is possible to do so" u/s 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, ruling that it allows flexibility only in exceptional circumstances beyond the Adjudicating Authority's control. The legislative intent behind Section 11A(11) emphasizes timely adjudication. The Court held that the 6-month or 2-year limitation cannot be extended to over 7 years. Citing K.M Sharma Vs. I.T.O, it stressed strict construction of fiscal statutes for certainty. Delay impacts Article 14 of the Constitution; a reasonable time frame of 5 years u/s 11A is upheld. The Court found a 7-year delay unreasonable, emphasizing completion within the statutory 5-year limit. The application was allowed. en-us Tue, 11 Jun 2024 07:55:38 +0530 Tue, 11 Jun 2024 07:55:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=78342 The High Court interpreted the phrase "where it is possible to do so" u/s 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, ruling that it allows flexibility only in exceptional circumstances beyond the Adjudicating Authority's control. The legislative intent behind Section 11A(11) emphasizes timely adjudication. The Court held that the 6-month or 2-year limitation cannot be extended to over 7 years. Citing K.M Sharma Vs. I.T.O, it stressed strict construction of fiscal statutes for certainty. Delay impacts Article 14 of the Constitution; a reasonable time frame of 5 years u/s 11A is upheld. The Court found a 7-year delay unreasonable, emphasizing completion within the statutory 5-year limit. The application was allowed. Highlights Central Excise Tue, 11 Jun 2024 07:55:38 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=78342