TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 738
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xcise Rules, 2002 [Rules] on Shri Shravan Kumar [Shrawan]. 2. There is no appeal from the Revenue on the portion of the demand dropped by the Commissioner in the impugned order. Submissions of the Appellant 3. Shri Jatin Mahajan, learned counsel for the appellants made the following submissions: (i) M/s Sharma Rolling Mills is a manufacturer of MS ingots/angles/rods/flats falling under chapter 72 of the first schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. (ii) To manufacture bars, ingots are required, which the appellant purchases from various buyers central Excise invoices on which it takes CENVAT credit. (iii) The anti evasion wing of the central excise visited the premises of one M/s. Shriram Steel Rolling Mills Private Ltd [SSSRM] and recovered some documents and recorded some statements. (iv) Based on the above records of SSSRM, the department concluded that the appellant had cleared 193 MT of MS ingots SSSRM whereas the appellant showed no clearances to SSSRM. (v) After investigating further, the department also concluded, based on consumption of electricity, that the appellant had manufactured and cleared more....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n Kumar Pathak, partner of the appellant. (iii) Nirmal had supplied the ingots without bills to the appellant which is shown in its records. The appellant had not recorded the purchase of these ingots in its records, and the consequential manufacture of final products and their removal to SSSRM. (iv) It is impossible for the department to prove with mathematical accuracy clandestine removal of the goods as held by the Supreme Court in CCE Madras vs. VD Bhoormal [1983(13) ELT 1546]. (v) Notices for cross examination were issued to Shri Ghasi Lal Sharma, Director SSSRM, Shri Murari Lal Sharma, General Manager, SSSRM and Shri BB Malik, Director, Nirmal in respect of other cases of other parties of identical nature. Shri Malik and Shri Murari Lal Sharma had not responded while Shri Ghasi Lal Sharma had sent an affidavit to the effect that he had suffered from paralysis and hence was bed ridden. Shri Ghasi Lal Sharma had also filed an affidavit on 1.12.2008 retracting his statement dated 10.9.2005 but it was belated and hence cannot be accepted. (vi) Under the circumstances, the Commissioner passed the impugned order which was fair and proper and call....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssed by the officer within a reasonable time. After the introduction of the statutory limitation, the order has necessarily to be passed within the prescribed time unless it is impossible to do so. The effect of undue delay in issuing an adjudication order was examined at length by this bench in Excise Appeal No. 52178 OF 2022 M/s Kopertek Metals Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner decided by Final Order No's. 59511-59720/2024 dated 25.11.2024. In that batch of appeals, the orders were passed beyond the time limit prescribed under section 11A(11) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the question was whether the delay itself would vitiate the order. After examining several judgments of High Courts and Supreme Court on this question, it was held as follows: "25. It transpires from the aforesaid decisions that: (i) The phrases " as far as possible" and "as far as practicable" are more or less inter-changeable along with the word "feasible"; (ii) Only when circumstances or insurmountable exigencies make it impracticable or not possible for the adjudication to take place within the stipulated period that the authorities may deviate from the time limit prescribed under t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....de and are set aside. The appeals are, accordingly, allowed with consequential relief(s), if any to the appellant." (emphasis supplied)" 9. The SCN was issued in this case on 3.12.2009 and the appellants filed replies on 1.1.2010 and 7.1.2010. Thereafter, the personal hearing was held nine years later on 29.1.2019 and in connection with the personal hearing, the appellant made some additional submissions dated 23.1.2019. The impugned order was passed on 22.2.2019 after the personal hearing. From these dates, it is evident that the appellants had been prompt and vigilant in replying to the SCN and no reason whatsoever is given in the impugned order for not adjudicating the matter immediately and to have waited for over nine years just to fix the personal hearing. 10. We are aware that the SCN was issued under section 11A in 2009 before the time limit for deciding the SCNs was introduced in 2011. Even if no limitation is prescribed under the law, then too the adjudicating has to be done within a reasonable period. 11. A question which may also arise is whether the limitation would also apply to cases where the SCN had already been issued. The Statute of Limitation, ....