2025 (2) TMI 316

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ng service tax for the period from July 2001 to September 2010. The short point on which the quashing is sought is that there is an inordinate and unexplained delay of more than 14 to 20 years in adjudicating the said Show Cause Notices, which is in violation of the principles of natural justice. 3. The Show Cause Notices sought to be quashed are dated 23rd March 2004, 25th October 2006, 15th October 2008, 22nd October 2009, 14th October 2010 and 25th August 2011. 4. The brief facts to decide the controversy in the present Petition are this. By a Show Cause Notice dated 23rd March 2004, the Petitioner was called upon to show cause why service tax should not be demanded from the Petitioner. The Show Cause Notice sought to classify the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-I [(2007) 9 VST 47], the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ("CESTAT") vide its order dated 3rd May 2007 allowed the Appeal in favour of Homa Engineering Works. This order of the CESTAT was challenged by the department before this Court by filing CEXA No. 67 of 2009. Since this Appeal was pending, the Show Cause Notices were transferred to call book on 24th March 2008. This Appeal was then withdrawn by the department on 21st October 2021 because the amount involved in the Appeal was below the threshold monetary limit. Similarly, the explanation is that also on the same issue, CESTAT in the case of M/s Mazgaon Dock Ltd has held that the business of chipping and painting of vessels would not be t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lso interesting to note is that the decision in the case of Homa Engineering Works was rendered by the CESTAT sometime in the year 2007 and the decision in the case of M/s Mazgaon Dock Ltd was rendered on 26th April 2008. Despite this, atleast as far as the first two Show Cause Notices were concerned, there was no impediment in adjudicating the same on the so called ground that the issue in the said Show Cause Notices was already decided against the department and from which an Appeal was pending before this Court. The facts of this case clearly show that the department has done nothing to adjudicate the six show causes notices issued to the Petitioner ranging from 14 to 20 years after the issuance of the said Show Cause Notices. 12. We ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed counsel for the Respondents states that the master circular issued in 2017 mandated intimating the Petitioners of the show cause notices being transferred to the call book and since there was no such requirement prior to 2017, it was not obligatory on them to inform the Petitioners. In our view this may not be the correct approach. Even in the absence of any circular, the fact that the show cause notice is not being adjudicated on account of transfer to the call book same ought to have been informed to the Petitioners by following the principle of natural justice. The master circular 2017 only clarify this position and therefore, even prior to 2017 we have observed in various cases referred to above that it was incumbent upon the Respond....