https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769042 CESTAT Kolkata allowed the appeal on grounds of delayed adjudication. The show cause notice was issued on 15.10.2015 but the adjudication order was passed on 06.01.2017, exceeding the mandatory one-year time limit under Section 73(4B) of Finance Act 1994. Following Bombay HC precedent in IDFC First Bank case, the tribunal held that the word "shall" makes the timeline mandatory, not directory. Since no justification was provided for the delay and the order was issued beyond prescribed limits, the entire adjudication proceedings became nullity and the order was deemed non-est in law. en-us Wed, 16 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 18 Apr 2025 08:38:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769042 CESTAT Kolkata allowed the appeal on grounds of delayed adjudication. The show cause notice was issued on 15.10.2015 but the adjudication order was passed on 06.01.2017, exceeding the mandatory one-year time limit under Section 73(4B) of Finance Act 1994. Following Bombay HC precedent in IDFC First Bank case, the tribunal held that the word "shall" makes the timeline mandatory, not directory. Since no justification was provided for the delay and the order was issued beyond prescribed limits, the entire adjudication proceedings became nullity and the order was deemed non-est in law. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 16 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769042