TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (9) TMI 25
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the writ petitions. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner primarily argued that proceedings in the case in hand deserve to be quashed only on account of inordinate delay in disposal thereof. Show cause notices were issued way back in the years 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2006. Thereafter, the department remained silent. The reasons assigned in the notice was regarding audit objection raised by the AG (Audit), Shimla, pertaining to the year 2000-01. Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short, 'the Act'), deals with recovery of duty not levied or not paid or short levied or short paid or erroneously refunded. Sub-section (11) thereof provides that as far as possible in normal cases, the proceedings should be concluded within a period of six months, whereas in the case of fraud, collusion, etc., the period prescribed is one year. In the case in hand, the proceedings are pending for the last more than 16 years when fresh notice for date of hearing was issued on 3.5.2017. 6. In support of plea, reliance was placed upon judgment of Gujarat High Court in Siddhi Vinayak Syntex Private Limited vs Union of India 2017 (352) E.L.T. 455. In the aforesaid case, even the order ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... fatal. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. 12. Relevant provisions of Section 11A (1), (4) and (11) of the Act are reproduced hereunder:- "Section 11A. Recovery of duties not levied or not paid or short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded.- (1) Where any duty of excise has not been levied or paid or has been short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded, for any reason, other than the reason of fraud or collusion or any wilful misstatement or suppression of facts or contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or of the rules made thereunder with intent to evade payment of duty,- (a) the Central Excise Officer shall, within one year from the relevant date, serve notice on the person chargeable with the duty which has not been so levied or paid or which has been so short-levied or short-paid or to whom the refund has erroneously been made, requiring him to show cause why he should not pay the amount specified in the notice; (b) the person chargeable with duty may, before service of notice under clause (a), pay on the basis of,- (i) his own ascertainment of such duty; or ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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, various amendments came to be made in the section including insertion of sub-section (11) which provides that 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 sub-section (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 legislat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... issuance of such directions. The concept of call book is, therefore, contrary to the provisions of the Central Excise Act and such instructions are beyond the scope of the authority of the C. B. E. & C. Transferring matters to the call book being contrary to the provisions of law, the explanation put forth by the respondents for the delay in concluding the proceedings pursuant to the show cause notice 3.8.1998 cannot be said to be a plausible explanation for not adjudicating upon the show cause notice within a reasonable time. In view of the settled legal position, as propounded by various High 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." 14. In the aforesaid case, Gujarat High Court had set aside the order passed after a long delay in pursuance to the show cause notice issued. 15. The judgment of Gujarat High Court was challenged by the revenue before Hon'ble the Supreme Court by filing Special Leave Petition (C) No. 18214 of 2017 - Union of India and others vs M/s Siddhi Vinaya....