TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (1) TMI 1532
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....STICE D.N. RAY) 1. Heard learned advocate Ms. Himanshi Patwa for Mr. Anandodaya S. Mishra for the Petitioners and learned advocate Mr. Dhaval D. Vyas for the Respondent No. 2. 2. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr. Dhaval D. Vyas waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the Respondent No. 2. With the consent of learned advocates for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for the final hearing, as the issue involved is very short. 3. This petition is filed under Articles 226 and Article 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 31.03.2022 and Show Cause Notice dated 27.01.2011, which has been upheld in the impugned order dated 31.03.2022. 4. The present writ pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....k was availed. 6.4 A Show Cause Notice dated 27.01.2011 was issued to the Petitioner, alleging that the details in the export in the Respondent's records did not match the details of export provided by the Petitioner. This notice also proposed that the exported goods were liable for confiscation under Section 113(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962, and hence, the drawback duty of the Petitioner shall be disallowed, and penalty shall be imposed along with interest under Section 114 and 114AA of the Customs Act. 6.5 The Commissioner of Customs(adjudicating authority) vide impugned Order OIO No. KDL/ADC/RHM/41/2021-22 dated 31.03.2022, disallowed the drawback duty availed, amounting to Rs. 46,13,887/- and further upheld the recovery of the amount ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2022 along with the allied matters, it is noteworthy that the adjudication of the Show Cause Notices was carried out after a lapse of more than eleven (11) years. 7. In the other group of matters, after the petitioners successfully appealed against the Order-in-Original, Revisions were filed by the Department and after a long gap of around eight years, the proceedings against the petitioners were revived by allowing the said Revisions by respective orders dated 8.3.2021 whereby, the orders in appeal were quashed and the Orders-in-Original were revived. A chart showing the revival of the lis, by way of Revision Orders is as below :- Special Civil Applicati on No. (SCA No.) Case Title Show Cause Notice (SCN) issued on: Order in Original ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....her contentions :- 1. Siddhi Vinayak Syntex Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India [2017 (352) ELT 455 (Guj)], 2. Shirish Harshavadan Shah v. Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate, Mumbai [(2010) 254 ELT 259(Bom)], 3. R.M. Malhotra v. Enforcement Directorate [(2009) 246 ELT 141 (Del)] 4. M/s. Maxcare Laboratories Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner, CGST, Central Excise, Customs, Bhubaneswar and others [W.P. (C) 2845 of 2020 dated 24.06.2021], 8.1 She further submitted relying upon the decision of this Court in M/s. Dewas Soya Ltd. Vs. Union of India and others (Special Civil Application No. 9090 of 2021 decided on 29.8.2024), that, any way, on merits, the petitioners stand fully covered by the ratio of the aforesaid decisions wherein, in the case ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the respondents were under the duty to disclose what compulsions held up the adjudicatory process for so long. In absence of such explanation, the revival of the proceedings would be unlawful and arbitrary.; 10.4 The Hon'ble Orissa High Court, in the case of, M/s. Maxcare Laboratories Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner, CGST, Central Excise, Customs, Bhubaneswar and others (Supra), held that revival of the proceedings after an inordinate delay is contrary to the concept of speedy disposal of SCN, when proper reason for the delay is not provided. 10.5 This Court, in the case of M/s. Dewas Soya Limited (Supra) has held as under:- 8. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and considering the facts of the case, it is not in disp....