TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (4) TMI 282
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ought for are as follows: "11. In the above premises, the petitioners most respectfully pray as under: A) That Your Lordships be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction in the nature of a writ of Certiorari and or any other appropriate writ order or direction, quashing and setting aside the Show Cause Notice F No.V/SCN/Geeta/RVI/ DV/ 9900 dtd 7-03-2000. B) That Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a Writ of Prohibition or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, completely and permanently prohibiting the Respondents, their servants and agents from taking any action against them in pursuance of Show Cause Notice No.V/SCN/Geeta/RVI/ DV/ 0000 dtd 7-3-2000. C) Pending hearing and final disposal of the present pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d with the provisions of the Central Excise Act and the Rules framed thereunder and other applicable laws for the time being in force. The show cause notice on 07.03.2000 came to be issued, wherein the petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why the customs duty amounting to Rs. 40,25,373/should not be recovered under section 12 of the Customs Act read with proviso to sub-section (1) of section 28 of the Customs Act on non-duty paid raw material used in manufacturing of non-permitted goods in Bonded premises and for recovery of payment of penalty under section 11AC of the Central Excise Act and other such matters. 5. This had been replied to on 24.02.2001. The first date given for hearing of the show cause notice was on 15.12.2017. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tary evidence showing that the petitioner had stopped the business and the factory and its office premises had been sold out. Since, these facts had not been stated with substantive and supportive documents, claims have not been genuine. 10. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Siddhi Vinayak Syntex Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India and others decided on 07.03.2017 in Special Civil Application No. 19437 of 2016, we noticed that there are no grounds to wriggle out of the ratio laid down by this Court for us to consider the contentions raised in Affidavit-in-reply. We notice that there are no grounds put-forth by the department, which can attribute any of the reasons to the petitioners for delay, which has been caused in adjudicating ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....djudicating authority for several reasons may not be in a position to decide the matter within the specified time frame, namely, a large number of witnesses may have to be examined, the record of the case may be very bulky, huge workload, non-availability of an officer, etc. which are genuine reasons for not being able to determine the amount of duty within the stipulated time frame. However, when a matter is consigned to the call book and kept in cold storage for years together, it is not on account of it not being possible for the authority to decide the case, but on grounds which are extraneous to the proceedings. In the opinion of this court, when the legislature in its wisdom has prescribed a particular time limit, the CBEC has no po....