TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (11) TMI 502
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er proposing final assessment on the basis of test reports received. In CWP No. 4134 of 2017, the petitioner imported Zinc Skimming vide Bill of Entry No. 4752691 dated 26.9.2011. The goods were detained. Representative samples were drawn, however, the goods were released provisionally on 1.10.2011. The samples were sent for testing. The report of the laboratory was received on 20.1.2012, whereas the show cause notice for assessment has been issued for 25.1.2017. In CWP No. 4135 of 2017, the petitioner imported Zinc Skimming vide two Bills of Entry No. 3137295 dated 6.4.2011 and 4653896 dated 15.9.2011. The goods were detained. Representative samples were drawn, however, the goods were released provisionally on 19.4.2011 and 22.9.2011....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent to be less than 70%. After the receipt of the second report, the proceedings initiated were dropped. It was further submitted that if in any product metallic content is 98.5%, the same would be totally hard, whereas skimming is always semi solid, difference of which can be made out with naked eyes. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that though Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short, 'the Act'), does not provide for any period for final assessment after the goods have been released on provisional assessment but Chapter 7 of the Board's Manual, provides that the assessment be finalized within six months. He further referred to Section 28 of the Act, which provides for issuance of a notice for r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....7) E.L.T. 325, wherein it was opined that five years would be the reasonable period in the absence of any time prescribed in the Act. Issue was further considered by this Court in M/s GPI Textiles Limited's case (supra), where notice issued beyond five years period under the Central Excise Act, 1944, was as set aside as the period was found to be unreasonable. Earlier two judgments of the Gujarat High Court in Siddhi Vinayak Syntex Private Limited vs Union of India 2017 (352) E.L.T. 455 and Parimal Textiles vs Union of India 2018 (8) G.S.T.L. 361 were also referred to therein. Relevant para nos. 13 to 16 therefrom are extracted below:- "13. Similar issue was considered by Gujarat High Court in M/s Siddhi Vinayak Syntex Priva....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ll 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 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 legislature has provided for such abiding by the time limit where it is possible to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....limit, the C.B.E. & C. 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 C. B. E. & C., 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 C. B. E. & C. to issue such instructions under any statutory provision, inasmuch as, neither....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....try of Finance, Government of India, is in conformity/ authorized by the provisions of Section 37-B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The order on merit has been upheld vide order dated 28.7.2017. 16. The view expressed in M/s Siddhi Vinayak Syntex Private Limited's case (supra) was subsequently followed by Gujarat High Court in Parimal Textiles' case (supra), where again belated order passed after issuing show cause notice, was set aside." Another fact, which was pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner was that under Section 18 of the Act there is no period provided for framing final assessment after the goods are released, however, in Chapter 7 of the Board's Manual, the period provided is six months. Even....