<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2025 (3) TMI 738 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767352</link>
    <description>CESTAT New Delhi set aside an adjudication order due to unreasonable delay in deciding a show cause notice. The SCN was issued in December 2009 regarding clandestine manufacture based on electricity consumption, with appellant filing timely replies in January 2010. However, personal hearing was conducted only in January 2019, and final order passed in February 2019 - nearly ten years later. The tribunal held that even without statutory limitation, adjudication must occur within reasonable time. The procedural law of limitation applies to pending cases, and the delay was inexcusable with no recorded reasons. Appeal was allowed with consequential relief granted to appellant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 17 Mar 2025 07:41:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=806691" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (3) TMI 738 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767352</link>
      <description>CESTAT New Delhi set aside an adjudication order due to unreasonable delay in deciding a show cause notice. The SCN was issued in December 2009 regarding clandestine manufacture based on electricity consumption, with appellant filing timely replies in January 2010. However, personal hearing was conducted only in January 2019, and final order passed in February 2019 - nearly ten years later. The tribunal held that even without statutory limitation, adjudication must occur within reasonable time. The procedural law of limitation applies to pending cases, and the delay was inexcusable with no recorded reasons. Appeal was allowed with consequential relief granted to appellant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767352</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>