TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (12) TMI 712
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nor factual differences which are wholly inconsequential. We may record facts from SCA No.12477 of 2017. 2. The petitioners have challenged Order in Original dated 21.03.2017 as at Annexure-F to the petition. The petitioner No.1 is a Private Limited Company. Petitioner No.2 is Director. At the relevant time, the petitioners were engaged in manufacture of textile goods for 100% exports. The petitioners had a unit at GIDC, Pandesara which was 100% EOU. The Department issued two show cause notices dated 10.12.2001 and 08.09.2004 calling upon the petitioners to explain why customs duty leviable on the petitioners clearance to the DTA areas of the manufactured goods should not be levied along with additional duties. The petitioners had replie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... unit was closed down in the year 2005. Due to closure of the unit and long passage of time, the petitioners were not in position to of several important documents, for which demands were made under RTI. Counsel relied on various judgments of this Court on this issue. 4. On the other hand, Counsel for the Department opposed the petitions contending that there is no prejudice caused to the petitioners on account of pendency of the proceedings. The proceedings were kept in abeyance to avoid multiplicity of litigation. The petitioners have not pleaded any prejudice on account of delay. 5. Few things emerge from the record. First is that the show cause notices were issued in the years 2001 and 2004. After petitioners filed their replies, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the Central Excise Officer shall determine the amount of duty of excise under sub-section (10) - (a) within six months from the date of notice where it is possible to do so, in respect of cases falling under sub-section (1); (b) within one year from the date of notice, where it is possible to do so, in respect of cases falling under sub-section (4) or subsection (5). 24. Thus, with effect from the year 2011 a time limit has been prescribed for determining the amount of duty of excise where it is possible. It cannot be gainsaid that when the legislature prescribes a time limit, it is incumbent upon the authority to abide by the same. While it is true that the legislature has provided for such abiding by the time ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....prescribed a particular time limit, the CBEC has no power or authority to extend such time limit for years on end merely to await a decision in another case. The adjudicatory authority is required to decide each case as it comes, unless restrained by an order of a higher forum. This court is of the view that the concept of call book created by the CBEC, which provides for transferring pending cases to the call book, is contrary to the statutory mandate, namely, that the adjudicating authority is required to determine the duty within the time frame specified by the legislature as far as possible. Moreover, as discussed hereinabove, there is no power vested in the CBEC to issue such instructions under any statutory provision, inasmuch as, nei....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ein the show cause notice had been dropped by the adjudicating authority, and the Appellate Tribunal had dismissed the appeal, albeit on grounds other than on merits. 26. Moreover, as is evident from the facts noted hereinabove, the respondents while consigning the matter to the call book did not deem it fit to inform the petitioner about it. Since in other cases, such proceedings had been dropped, the petitioner had reason to form a bona fide belief that the proceedings in its case had also been dropped. During the interregnum the petitioners position has changed considerably. ln view of the fact that the factory of the petitioner company has been closed down and sold, it cannot be gainsaid that even if the petitioner was served w....