TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (12) TMI 819
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Unit at Kandala KFTZ. Two show-cause notices dated 15.01.2003 and 28.02.2003 came to be issued against the petitioners in connection with the activities carried out by the petitioners in the said unit mainly alleging that the petitioners had cleared certain processed fabrics in domestic tariff area without payment of duty. For reasons which are not apparent on the record, these two show-cause notices were kept dormant which in the department's parlance is referred to as 'the call book'. Yet another notice dated 07.06.2007 came to be issued making fresh allegations of similar unauthorized diversion of goods. 3. The department undertook the adjudication of only third such show-cause notice viz. one dated 07.06.2007. The adjudicat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vs. Union of India and ors [Special Civil Application No. 19437 of 2016]. Counsel pointed out that such judgement is carried in appeal by the department. The Supreme Court admitted the SLP only to the limited extent of the authority or the department to keep certain proceedings in call book. In other words, the decision of the Court that the proceedings cannot be drawn out of oblivion after long gap of time for adjudication is not under consideration by the Supreme Court. 6. With respect to the adjudication concerning the show-cause notice dated 07.06.2007 the main ground of challenge is that the adjudicating authority has relied on the statements of noticees in connected proceedings to believe the allegations of clandestine removal of goo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....heir position. The Court made following observations: "23.Insofar as the show cause notice in the instant case is concerned, the same has been issued under section 11A of the Act. Proceedings under section 11A of the Act are adjudicatory proceedings and the authority which decides the same is a quasi-judicial authority. Such proceedings are strictly governed by the statutory provisions. Section 11A of the Act as it stood at the relevant time when the show cause notice came to be issued, provided for issuance of notice within six months from the relevant date in ordinary cases and within five years in case where the extended period of limitation is invoked. Section 11A thereafter has been amended from time to time and in the year 2011, var....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....islature has wisely not prescribed a time limit and has specified such time limit where it is possible to do so, for the reason that the adjudicating authority for several reasons may not be in a position to decide the matter within the specified time frame, namely, a large number of witnesses may have to be examined, the record of the case may be very bulky, huge workload, non-availability of an officer, etc. which are genuine reasons for not being able to determine the amount of duty within the stipulated time frame. However, when a matter is consigned to the call book and kept in cold storage for years together, it is not on account of it not being possible for the authority to decide the case, but on grounds which are extraneous to the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....igh Courts, with which this court is in full agreement, the revival of proceedings after a long gap of ten to fifteen years without disclosing any reason for the delay, would be unlawful and arbitrary and would vitiate the entire proceedings. 25. Examining the matter from another angle, it is the stand of the respondents that the matter was kept in the call book for all these years to await the outcome of a similar case in the case of M/s. Siddharth Petro Products Limited and others, which was pending before the Appellate Tribunal. In such a situation, the decision in the case of the petitioner should be governed by the decision of the Appellate Tribunal. However, the respondents after keeping the matter in the call book for fifteen years....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....w cause notice and the order-in-original passed pursuant thereto, cannot be sustained. 27. For the foregoing reasons, the petition succeeds and is, accordingly, allowed. The impugned Order-in-original No.AHMEXCUS- 003-040-15-16 dated 11.3.2016 as well as the Show Cause Notice F.No.V.54/15-29/OA/98 dated 3.8.1998 are hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs." 9. Facts are similar in the present cases except that after reactivating the dormant show-cause notices proceedings, the petitioners had full information that the department was proceeding with the said notices also. However, this would not be vital since all other material aspects are common. In the result, impugned order dated 28.02.2017 in conn....