TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 1131
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he release of the Bank Guarantee furnished at the time of release of the seized goods. BRIEF FACTS: 2. On 29.04.2011, pursuant to receipt of information, the Anti-Evasion Wing of the Central Excise, Delhi-1, conducted searches and effected seizures under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter "the Act") from the premises of the Petitioner firms and that of Mr. Parmod Kumar Jain. A panchnama of the seized goods was duly drawn. Mr. Parmod Kumar Jain was the proprietor of M/s Paras Products and M/s Sai Enterprises, and his son, Mr. Ankit Jain, was the proprietor of M/s Jaina Polymers. During search, the following materials were seized at the premises: S.No. Goods seized from the premises (M/s) Description of seized goods Seizure value (INR) Total Value (INR) 1. Petitioner in W.P.(C) 6235/2023 Finished goods 10,97,496 39,95,816 Raw Materials 8,34,300 Scrap 1,34,020 Moulds 39,95,816 2. Petitioner in W.P.(C) 6376/2023 Finished goods 9,59,900 18,47,750 Raw Materials 1,87,850 Tata 407 vehicle 7,00,000 3. Petitioner in W.P.(C) 6648/2023 Finished goods 35,760 90,510 Raw Materials 54,750 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n Vos Technologies India (P) Ltd. v. Director General, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 8756, S.B. Gurbaksh Singh v. Union of India, (1976) 2 SCC 181, State of Punjab v. Bhatinda District Coop. Milk Producers Union Ltd., (2007) 11 SCC 363, Sunder System (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 12137 and Siddhi Vinayak Syntex (P) Ltd. v. Union of India Siddhi Vinayak Syntex (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, 2017 SCC OnLine Guj 2609. 11. In response thereto, the Respondent authorities would raise three contentions. Firstly, with the advent of the CGST Act on 01.07.2017, it had become difficult to make prompt adjudication, as the department was restructured and which led to numerous difficulties, including conducting physical verification of various registrants to avoid and prevent fraudulent activities and misuse of the new tax regime. Secondly, COVID-19 which adversely affected the smooth functioning of the department. Thirdly, the Petitioners themselves delayed the proceeding by not filing reply on time or filing belated reply and also that the Petitioners avoided joining the physical hearing. Therefore, there was no wilful delay on the part of the department regarding the adjudication proc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....relevant date, serve notice on the person chargeable with the duty which has not been so levied or paid or which has been so short-levied or short-paid or to whom the refund has erroneously been made, requiring him to show cause why he should not pay the amount specified in the notice; (b) the person chargeable with duty may, before service of notice under clause (a), pay on the basis of - (i) his own ascertainment of such duty; or (ii) the duty ascertained by the Central Excise Officer, the amount of duty along with interest payable thereon under Section 11-AA. (4) Where any duty of excise has not been levied or paid or has been short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded, by the reason of- (a) fraud; or (b) collusion; or (c) any wilful misstatement; or (d) suppression of facts; or (e) contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or of the rules made thereunder with intent to evade payment of duty, by any person chargeable with the duty, the Central Excise Officer shall, within five years from the relevant date, serve notice on such person requiring him to show cause why....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....evy or erroneous refund as contrasted with cases where that may have occurred by reason of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts. However, and of significance is sub-section (4-B), and which continues to employ the phrase "where it is possible to do so" as opposed to the amendments which came to be made in Section 28 of the Customs Act. ***** 20. We have chosen to extract those provisions for the sake of completeness and notwithstanding the petitioners asserting that by virtue of Section 174 (2) of the CGST Act, and which constitutes the „Repeal and Saving' clause, it would be the provisions of the 1994 Act which would govern. 21. In terms of Section 73 (1) of the CGST Act, which is principally concerned with cases other than where allegations of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts are made, and pertains to tax incorrectly computed, erroneously refunded or benefits wrongly availed, sets out terminal points within which action referable to that provision would have to be commenced and concluded. A final order on the culmination of adjudication is liable to be framed by the proper officer in terms contemplated un....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty which the statute confers is not liable to be construed as sanctioning lethargy or indolence. Ultimately it is incumbent upon the authority to establish that it was genuinely hindered and impeded in resolving the dispute 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 book, the retrieval of matters therefrom and transfer all over again not only defies logic it is also demonstrative of due application of mind quite apart from the said procedure having been found by us to be contrary to the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... adjudication premised on (a) the advent of the CGST Act in 2017 & its shortfall in the administrative functioning subsequently, (b) COVID-19 and (c) the delay caused by the Petitioners by not filing reply on time or filing belated reply to the SCN and by avoiding joining the physical hearings. 18. These feeble justifications, for whatever they are worth, in any case, pertain to the events subsequent to July-2017. There is no plausible reason as to why the adjudication could not be done between 2011-17 and the inaction for the said period remains unexplained. 19. With respect to the allegation of giving late replies, seeking repeated adjournments or failing to cooperate in the proceedings by the assessees, this Court has already held in Vos Technologies India that in any such situation, nothing prevents the Respondent authorities from proceeding ex-parte or refusing to reject such requests if considered lacking in bona fides. COVID-19 and introduction of the CGST Act, in any event cannot condone the delay for the period before these intervening events. These appear to be excuses to seek to explain inaction by the Respondents for over 11 years. 20. So far as the Respondents....