TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (2) TMI 910
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash the impugned Order In Original dated 15th January 2024. 3. The Petitioner-Mr. Umesh Gulhar was a Director in a China based company - M/s. Tessuti (HK) Ltd. The said company is said to have exported few consignments consisting of 'Narrow Woven Fabrics' between October, 2010 and November, 2010 to an importer company in India being, J.R. International (hereinafter 'Importer'). Certain bills of entry qua the said consignments were also filed in the this regard. 4. According to the Respondent-Department, the said consignments were mis-declared and, accordingly, a show cause notice was issued on 7th November, 2013 was sent to the Importer with Petitioner company as a co-noticee, dem....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....with reasonable speed and dispatch. A statutory authority when faced with such a challenge would be obligated to prove that it was either impracticable to proceed or it was constricted by factors beyond its control which prevented it from moving with reasonable expedition. This principle would apply equally to cases falling either under the Customs Act, the 1994 Act or the CGST Act. 86. When we revert to the facts that obtain in this batch, we find that the respondents have clearly failed to establish the existence of an insurmountable constraint which operated and which could be acknowledged in law as impeding their power to conclude pending adjudications. In fact, and to the contrary, the frequent placement of matters in the call....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and which stand impugned in this batch of writ petitions." 6. As can be seen from the above judgment, the question that was considered by the Court was whether there was undue delay in adjudication of the show cause notice in terms of Section 128 of the Act. The Court observed that there was no justification for the enormous delay that occurred in the adjudication and had, accordingly, quashed the show cause notices. The details of - a. the said show cause notice dated 7th November, 2013 and b. the various dates on which the show cause notice was transferred and was taken out the call book and c. number of adjournments passed are set out in the said judgment in the form of a chart at pages 38 and 39. 7. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the validation owing to Section 97 of the Finance Act, 2022. 28.12.2023 *14.08.2014 - Nobody appeared on the given date and time. * 03.12.2014 - Nobody appeared on given date and time. Advocate on behalf of Noticee No. 3 requested for another date of personal hearing. * 23.02.2015 - The AR of the Petitioner appeared and sought adjournment in the matter. * 31.03.2015 - Nobody appeared on the given date and time. * 18.09.2015 - The Ars appeared and sought more time to file the reply. * 13.10.2015 - AR of the Petitioner stated that the Petitioner is in the process of challenging the SCN before the Delhi High Court in respect of the powers of the DRI to issue the said SCN, and accordingly the proceedings could not conti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Hon'ble Supreme Court. He argued that as the matter is sub- judice, no order should be passed till the final disposal of the case by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He also informed that all such cases are not being entertained in CESTAT. He also requested that he should be given opportunity to make final submissions on merit and another chance of personal hearing to argue the case in detail. 05.10.2017 - None of the noticees attended the PH. Pre 8. The present petition has been filed by the Director who was one of the co-noticees against whom the Order In Original dated 15th January, 2024 has been passed, pursuant to the said show cause notice dated 7th November, 2013. 9. Since, both the show cause notice and the final order that ....