TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (8) TMI 1397
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the Learned 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 30-5-2018. The same 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 (Gujarat). 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 bra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 The petitioner contended that instead of following the binding precedent, the adjudicating authority ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vit 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 the notice considering the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Nebulae Health Care Limited. If that is so, there should not have been assertion in the affidavit, affirmed by respondent No. 2, dated 4-9-2018, that the petitioner neither appeared nor sought time, and therefore,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ded 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 the case from the Call Book in the year 2009 the adjudication into the case did not conclude till 24-5-2018, the petitioner cannot be blamed for non adjudication of the show cause notice as he had never requested to transfer it to the Call Book or he has never delayed any proceedings pending adjudication. In short....