TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (4) TMI 694
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bout the pending matter under the Right to Information Act by application dated 15.06.2020, it was realized that pendency of Departmental Appeal was the reason for not proceeding with the matter and for not complying with the directions issued by this Court. The applicant, therefore, is before this Court seeking revival of the original matters. 3. This Court on 29.01.2021, by issuing notice, passed the following order: "1. The applicant­original petitioner is the proprietor of M/s.Lazio Exports, Surat, and on one of the co­notice in the show­cause notice dated 31.03.2005, which was given on the basis of the intelligence collected by the officers of the Directorate of the Revenue Intelligence, Surat. 1.1 The applicant has approached this Court with the grievance that there is no adjudication taking place, although, eight years have passed since the order passed by the CESTAT and instead, show­cause notice came to be issued for readjudication, relying on the decision 'SIDDHI VINAYAK SYNTEX PVT. LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS' in Special Civil Application No.19437 of 2016 and the allied matters. 2. We have heard the learned Advocate, M....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to call book in view of CBEC Circular 162/73/95­CX dated 14.12.1995 to await outcome of a similar case. The Court held that consistent approach adopted by different High Courts is that the revival of the proceedings after long time gap without any proper explanation is unlawful and arbitrary. The Court also held that the said circular cannot be said to have issued in exercise of powers under section 37B of the Central Excise Act as concept of call book did not relate to uniformity in classification of excisable goods, or to levy of excise duties on such goods. Instructions to consign a case to call book relatable to adjudicatory process, and do not provide for matters, any incidental consistent with or the supplemental Act or Rules thereunder. The Court held that the CBEC is not empowered to issue instructions to any adjudicatory authority in relation to matters pending for adjudication before it. Consignment of matter to call book were extraneous to proceedings on grounds and not due to impossibility of authority to decide the case and hence the Court held that transferring the matter to call book is contrary to the provisions of law and explanation put forth by Department for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sonable time and if it is not done so, they stand vitiated on the said ground. The court observed that, normally for compliance of the principles of natural justice it would have remanded the matter back to the concerned authority. However, considering the time lag that has elapsed from the date of first hearing granted to the petitioner, since there had been undue delay in deciding the said proceedings, it did not deem it fit to remand the matter to the concerned authority of the respondents. The court, accordingly, set aside the impugned order. 18. In R. M. Mehrotra v. Enforcement Directorate (supra), the Delhi High Court held that the revival of the proceedings after a time gap of ten years, without notice of hearing disclosing any reason for the delay, is not a mere matter of impropriety; the respondents were under a duty to disclose what compulsions held up the adjudicatory process for so long. In the absence of such explanation, revival of the proceedings would be unlawful and arbitrary. 19. Thus, the consistent approach adopted by the different High Courts insofar as the delay in concluding proceedings pursuant to a show cause notice is concerned, is that r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....excisable goods, or to levy of duties of excise of such goods. Insofar as the implementation of any other provision of this Act is concerned, the concept of call book, cannot be traced to any other provision of the Act nor does it appear to be relatable to the implementation of any other provision of the Act. Evidently, therefore, the circular dated 14.12.1995, cannot be said to have been issued in exercise of powers under section 37B of the Act. 22. On behalf of the respondents, reliance has also been placed upon rule 31 of the Central Excise Rules, which makes provision for power to issue supplementary instructions and lays down that the Board or the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner, as the case may be, or the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, as the case may be, may issue written instructions providing for any incidental or supplemental matters, consistent with the provisions of the Act and the rules. In view of the provisions of rule 31 of the rules, any instructions issued by the Board thereunder have to be either incidental or supplemental and consistent with the provisions of the Act and the rules. In the opinion of this court, instructions t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to do so", it means that if in the ordinary course it is possible to determine the amount of duty within the specified time frame, it should be so done. The legislature has wisely not prescribed a time limit and has specified such time limit where it is possible to do so, for the reason that the adjudicating 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 power or authority to extend such time limit for years on end merely to await a decision in another case. The adjudicatory authority is required to decide ....