TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 127
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., inter alia, challenging the impugned Order-in-Original dated 31st January, 2025 (hereinafter "impugned order"), which arises out of the Show Cause Notice dated 14th January, 2021 (hereinafter "the SCN"). 3. The submissions raised by the Petitioner is twofold: i) Firstly, that the SCN had been issued after five years and is hence not maintainable; ii) Secondly, that the adjudication has been delayed for a period of five years. 4. Mr. Sarkar, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner relies upon the decision in W.P. (C) 4831/2021 titled M/s. VOS Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Principal Additional Director General & Anr., to argue that the delayed adjudication ought to result in the quashing of the SCN itself. 5. Mr. Na....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te M/s Lex Malgan vide letter dated 24.04.2023 requested to provide copy of statement recorded on 06.10.2016. 25.05.2023 No One attended the Personal Hearing The Noticee vide letter dated 25.05.2023 has requested to provide relied upon documents. 20.09.2023 No One attended the Personal Hearing The authorized representative of the Noticee, advocate M/s Lex Malgan vide letter dated 20.09.2023 requested to provide copy of statement recorded on 06.10.2016. 21.10.2024 No One attended the Personal Hearing The authorized representative of the Noticee, advocate M/s Lex Malgan vide letter dated 23.10.2024 requested to provide copy of statement recorded on 06.10.2016. 08.11.2024 No One attended the Personal Hear....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ex Malgan vide letter dated 23.10.2024 requested to provide copy of statement recorded on 06.10.2016. 08.11 2024 No One attended the Personal Hearing The Noucce neither attended the personal hearing nor submitted any reply 17.12.2024 No One attended the Personal Hearing The Noticee vide mail dated 17.12.2024 has requested to provide copy of statement recorded on 06.10 2016 13.01.2025 No One attended the Personal Hearing The Noticee neither attended the personal hearing nor submitted any reply M/s. Vinanath Enterprises 15.12.2022, 16.01.2023, 24.04.2023. 25.05.2023, 20.09.2023, 21.10.2024, 08.11.2024, 17.12.2024 No One attended the Personal Hearing The letter sent for Personal Heari....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... postal authority. Shri Manish Jain 15.12.2022, 16.01.2023, 24.04.2023, 25.05.2023. 20.09.2023, 21.10.2024, 08.11.2024, 17.12.2024 No One attended the Personal Hearing The letter sent for Personal Hearing was returned back by postal authority. 7. A perusal of the above dates of hearings which were afforded to the Petitioner would show that beginning from 15th December, 2022 till 13th January, 2025, repeated hearings have been held by the Adjudicating Authority. On most of the occasions, the Petitioner did not appear before the Adjudicating Authority, however, repeated letters were sent seeking relied upon documents etc. Further, despite the number of hearings extended, the Petitioner did not choose to fil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n in Commissioner of Customs v. Sans Frontiers, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7913, where in a similar fact situation, the Court had relegated the party to seek the appellate remedy. The relevant portion of the said judgment is set out below: "22. However, it is relevant to note that this Court vide order dated 10th March, 2025 in W.P.(C) 3012/2025 has, in fact, relegated the co-noticee to avail the statutory appellate remedy. Further, the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Commr. of Customs v. Sans Frontiers, (2023 SCC OnLine Del 7913) where a similar issue of limitation under Rule 16 of the Duty Drawback Rules was raised, the Court had relegated the case on the ground that there was an alternate remedy that remained un-exhausted. "....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d upon by the revision authority having jurisdiction under section 129DD of the Customs Act. 81. In the peculiar facts of this case where the Revenue originally had not taken any objection on the appeal being heard by the learned CESTAT, and had also, following the order of the learned CESTAT, sanctioned refund of the drawback, the firm should not be left remediless. 82. We, therefore, grant an opportunity to the firm to prefer a revision, under section 129DD of the Customs Act, against the order dated May 14, 2018 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 83. We direct that if such a revision is preferred within a period of two months, the same shall not be dismissed on the ground of limitation and be entertained on ....