TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (1) TMI 1621
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....facts leading to filing of this petition as could be gathered from the memo of the petition needs to be set out as under: 4.1 The petitioner No.1 Company is engaged in the activity of manufacturing and selling a wide array of edible oils. On 08.06.2001, the petitioner No.1 Company entered into Sale Contract bearing No.80000056 with Wilmar Trading Pte Ltd., Singapore for supply of 20000 MT (actual quantity imported was 19605.064 MT) Degummed Soyabean Oil @ US$ 310 PMT. Out of total quantity, a quantity of 7605.064 MT was sold on high seas sale basis to various parties. Therefore, the petitioner No.1 Company filed 8 Bills of Entry for clearance of imported goods i.e. 12000 MT for home consumption under Section 46 of the Customs Act, 1962. 4.2 The respondent No.2 based on (i) quotations appearing in Oil World Quotations and (ii) imports made by M/s. Kundan Rice Mills Ltd., Delhi, issued a show cause notice on 25.09.2002 proposing to enhance the value of imported goods @ US$ 425 from US$ 310 as declared by the petitioner No.1 Company. 4.3 The petitioner No.1 wrote a letter on 01.10.2002 to the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, GAPL, Mund....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ned advocate for the petitioners submitted that the show cause notice was issued on 25.09.2000 and thereafter, no adjudication proceedings were conducted or concluded by the concerned Authority within a reasonable period. There was no reason for the respondent Authority not come to complete the adjudication of the show cause notice and therefore, the show cause notice that was kept pending for than 15 to 16 years is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. He further submitted that the issue involved in the present petition is no longer res integra and the show cause notice issued by the respondent is in clear breach of the statutory mandate of Section 11A(11) of the Customs Act and can no longer be sustained. In support of his submissions he placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of M/s. Siddhi Vinayak Syntex Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) and M/s. Parimal Textiles (Supra) and submitted that the case could not have been kept pending for so many years and the delay of more than 15 to 16 years is fatal and amounts to re-opening the case. It was submitted that no mala fide or any other default is attributable to the petitioner for the delay in adjudicating the s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 subsection (1); (b) within one year from the date of notice, where it is possible to do so, in respect of cases falling under subsection (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 do so, sub-section (11) of section 11A of the Act gives an indication as to the l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the CBEC. 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. 11. In the case of Shivkurpa Processors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India reported in 2018 (362) E.L.T. 773 (Guj.). In the case of Shivkrupa (Supra), this Court has held as under: "10. We have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the documents 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 a....