2018 (3) TMI 1701

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the show cause notice, which had been issued on 22-8-2002 for the reasons stated in the Order-in-Original. 2. Facts in brief leading to filing of this petition, as could be culled out from the memo of petition, deserve to be set out as under : The petitioner No. 1 Company is a Private Limited Company which was engaged in the processing of man-made fabrics falling under CETH 54.06 of the First Schedule [to] Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 during 2001-02 through its EOU located at the address. The Petitioner No. 2 is a Director as well as shareholder of the Petitioner No. 1 Company. The petitioner Company obtained advance DTA sales permission dated 27-6-2001 and served a copy of the same on the jurisdiction Range Superintendent vide le....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nsel for the petitioners invited this Court's attention to the show cause notice as well as date of show cause notice to vehemently contend that the said show cause notice culminated into impugned order, which cannot be passed on 8-3-2017, as the time lag between the two, itself is sufficient for rendering the Order-in-Original as invalid, inappropriate and without jurisdiction of settled proposition of law. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners invited Court's attention to page 72, which was reply to attempt to revive and resurrect the matter on the original show cause notice and indicated that the said attempt on the part of authority would not be in consonance with provisions of law and the decision then prevailing on th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ted that this Court has followed the said ratio in case of Alidhara Textile Engineers Ltd. v. Union of India and in that view of the matter, the order impugned deserve to be quashed and set aside. 7. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 invited this Court's attention to two Circulars dated 28-5-2003 & 26-4-2016 to indicate that the respondent authorities were justified in late conducting the proceedings pursuant to show cause notice of the year 2002 as there is a procedure for keeping in 'Call Book' when the show cause notice and adjudication are required to be kept in abeyance and same similar issues are pending adjudication before the High Court and Supreme Court. The said circulars have been pressed into service to indicate tha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uments on record. The undisputed aspect that emerged from the proceedings would unequivocally indicate that notice dated 22-8-2002 did not result into any order for quite sometime and as per say of respondent, it was consigned to the call book as per the circulars prevalent. The authority appeared to have proceeded with broad aspect of the matter that non-receipt of the said notice cannot be said to be established by the noticee and based thereupon, recording findings that concerned authorized person of the petitioner Company, who also is the signatory to this petition, did receive the notice and therefore, it cannot be in any manner correct on the part of the petitioners to say that there was no knowledge of existence of show cause notice ....