TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (6) TMI 947
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Advocates appearing for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today. 3. By filing the present petition, present petitioner has challenged the Order-in-Original passed by respondent No. 2 herein dated 25-5-2018 issued on 29-5-2018 as it has been passed after a long delay of nearly eleven years of issuance of show cause notice dated 14-8-2006 and the issue raised in the petition is covered by decision of this Court in the case of Siddhi Vinayak Syntex Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India reported in 2017 (352) E.L.T. 455 (Guj.). 4. The petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in the manufacture of Medicaments on their own account as well as for various loan licensees under their different brand names. The pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Consultant of the petitioner firm. Even at the time of hearing, the petitioner relied upon the order of Commissioner passed in the case of M/s. Rhombus Pharma Private Ltd. wherein on identical facts, as claimed by the petitioner, the show cause notice was dropped by the Commissioner. From the impugned order, it is clear that the Department had filed appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner in M/s. Rhombus Pharma Private Ltd. before the Tribunal. The Tribunal upheld the order of the Commissioner and rejected the appeal of the Department confirming that payment of duty for the extended period of limitation cannot be sustained and the adjudicating authority rightly dropped the demand for the extended period of limitation. 4.3&e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly by respondent No. 2, it is claimed that notices dated 9-3-2018, 16-3-2018 and 13-4-2018 were issued to the petitioner. It is also asserted in the affidavit that the petitioner neither appeared nor sought time, and therefore, from the available record, the order impugned came to be passed. The said affidavit further reflects that Mr. Nilesh Bhatt, Consultant of the petitioner, acknowledged the notices and thereby it was denied that there is any breach of principles of natural justice. However, by way of additional affidavit dated 28-9-2018, respondent No. 2 claimed that the notices were issued and served upon the tax consultant of the petitioner, Mr. Nilesh Bhatt, and it was replied/responded by e-mail requesting respondent No. 2 to drop ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed by respondent No. 2 herein dated 25-5-2018 issued on 29-5-2018 as the issue raised in the petition is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Siddhi Vinayak Syntex Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and followed subsequently in so many cases. 5. Mr. Viral K. Shah, Learned Advocate for the Department contended that since the alternative remedy is available against the order impugned and there is no breach of principles of natural justice, the petition may kindly be rejected. 6. Having heard Learned Advocates for the respective parties, it is clear that though the show cause notice came to be issued in the present case in the year 2006 and it remained dormant for pretty long years without any adjudication, even after retrieving th....