TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (9) TMI 405
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the impugned show cause notice was issued by Respondent No. 2 calling upon Petitioner to show cause why differential Central Excise Duty should not be demanded and recovered by enhancing assessable value on account of supply of bought out items which were directly supplied by the suppliers of Petitioner to the site of Petitioner's customers. Petitioner was also called upon to show cause why interest should not be charged on the differential Excise Duty demand and penalty should not be imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 4. Under a cover of letter dated 1st July 2017, Petitioner complied with the aforesaid show cause notice by filing reply running into more than 400 pages giving all the documents and submissions as to why the show cause notice should be dropped. 5. On 18th September 2017, Petitioner attended personal hearing before Respondent No. 2 and made submissions for dropping of the show cause notice. Petitioner also filed additional submissions, pursuant to the personal hearing, under a cover of letter dated 10th October 2017, which too consisted of almost 500 pages. 6. However, from 10th October 2017 till 4th September 2023, for a period of almos....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Central Government due to implementation of GST and the show cause notice could not be adjudicated due to oversight. Relevant extract of paragraph 6 of the Affidavit-in-reply reads as under:- "..... Unfortunately however no order came to be passed in the SCN due to the fact that the department was going through a complete overhaul due to implementation of GST which entailed a sea change in the overall functioning involving redrawing of jurisdictions and control by two different authorities i.e. the state government and the central government. I say that in all this upheaval in reorganization and the transfer and change of officers to and from different Commissionerates the order concluding the SCN remained to be passed. This happened due to oversight which is a real possibility and the petitioner cannot use this as an excuse for not responding to the show cause notice only on the ground that for 6 years nothing was done. ......." 9. Respondent No. 2 in the aforesaid Affidavit has also touched upon the merits of the case and supported the issuance of show cause notice. However, in the said Affidavit, there is no rebuttal to the averments made by Petitioner that the issue....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed 7th July 2023 in Petitioner's own case. Therefore, in our view, relegating Petitioner to attend the show cause notice would be unfair, unreasonable and gross abuse of the power. Respondents have not filed any evidence in support of paragraph 6 of their affidavit to show even prima-facie that the show cause notice could not be adjudicated because of overall in functioning of department on account of implementation of GST. 12. The issue of delay in adjudication of the show cause notice had come up before this Court in series of judgments to which either one of us was a party. This Court has, in a detailed judgment, in Coventry Estate Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Joint Commissioner CGST and Central Excise & Anr. (2023) 10 Centax 38 (Bom.) quashed such show cause notice. The relevant paragraphs of the said decision reads as under:- "17. In our opinion, in the facts of the present case, such requirement and obligation the law would mandate is completely overlooked by the officer responsible for adjudicating the show cause notice. We are not shown any provision, which in any manner would permit any authority to condone such inordinate delay on the part of the adjudicating officer to adjudicat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icious administrative behaviour in adjudication of show cause notice would be an antithesis to the norms of a lawful, fair and effective quasi judicial adjudication. In our opinion, these are also the principles which are implicit in the latin maxim "lex dilationes abhorret", i.e., law abhors delay. 21. In such context as to how the Courts have dealt with similar situations can be seen from some of the significant decisions on the issue. In Sushitex Exports (India) Ltd. (supra), a Division Bench of this Court was dealing with a case in which a show cause notice was issued on 30 April, 1997, which was not adjudicated till the petitioners filed the writ petition in the year 2020. In such context, the Court while allowing the petition, observed that the law is well settled that when a power is conferred to achieve a particular object, such power has to be exercised reasonally, rationally and with objectivity. It was observed that it would amount to an arbitrary exercise of power if proceedings initiated in 1997 are not taken to their logical conclusion even after a period of over two decades. The Court agreed with the view taken in Parle International Ltd. (supra) that the proceedi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e the observations of the Court: "10. It is not expected from the assessee to preserve the evidence/record intact for such a long period to be produced at the time of hearing of the show-cause notice. The respondent having issued the show cause notice, it is their duty to take the said show-cause notice to its logical conclusion by adjudicating upon the said show-cause notice within a reasonable period of time. In view of the gross delay on the part of the respondent, the petitioner cannot be ade to suffer. The law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Parle International Limited (supra), applies to the facts of this case. We do not propose to take any different view in the matter. Hearing of show-cause notice belatedly is in violation of natural justice." 23. In ATA Freight Line (I) Pvt. Ltd. (supra), a Division Bench of this Court considering the decisions in Parle International Ltd. (supra), Bhagwandas S. Tolani vs. B.C. Aggarwal & Ors., 1983 (12) E.L.T. 44 (Bom.) and Reliance Industries Ltd. (supra) held that a show cause notice issued a decade back should not be allowed to be adjudicated by the Revenue merely because there is no period of limitatio....