TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (12) TMI 818
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Application No.9298/2017. 2. Petitioner no.1 is a company engaged in manufacturing textile goods like processed fabrics, manmade fabrics, etc. Petitioner no.2 is a director of the petitioner no.1 company. The respondents, the Customs authority, issued a show cause notice dated 22.8.2002 to the petitioners why differential duty of excise to aggregate of customs duty amounting to Rs. 77.62 lacs (rounded off) and Rs. 8.11 lacs(rounded off) not be recovered with interest and penalties. The main ground mentioned in the show cause notice was that the petitioners had 100% export oriented units. The petitioners had made duty free imports of raw materials on the condition that the finished product would be exported. According to the authority,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and prayed for additional time and urged that hearing may be fixed after such documents are supplied to them. 3. The petitioners placed written submissions before the authority on 14.10.2016 in which the legal contentions taken in reply to show cause notice were reiterated. The written submissions were primarily confined to raising legal disputes of any liability of the petitioners to pay duty. Obviously, since the petitioners did not have necessary documents from various Government agencies, no additional information or contentions were raised on facts. The adjudicating authority however, proceeded to pass impugned order dated 31.1.2017 rejecting the petitioners' request for indefinite postponement of the hearing. He noted that in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 22.8.2002. After the petitioners' reply to the show cause notice dated 2.10.2012, no further hearing took place upto 21.9.2016 when the department activated the show cause notice proceedings. In the meantime the proceedings remained dormant. The reason for keeping the proceedings in abeyance or the reason for reactivation, had not been communicated to the petitioners. In the meantime, the unit closed down in the year 2006 when the competent authority activated the show cause notice proceedings. The petitioners wrote letters requesting for time mainly on the ground that several documents seized by various Government agencies have not been made available to the petitioners. In absence of such documents, it would not be possible for the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the Central Excise Officer shall determine the amount of duty of excise under subsection (10) ( a) within six months from the date of notice where it is possible to do so, in respect of cases falling under subsection (1); (b) within one year from the date of notice, where it is possible to do so, in respect of cases falling under subsection (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 limit where it is pos....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ime 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, neither section 37B of the C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 with the notice of persona....