TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 499
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....had obtained the Advance Licences which are the subject matter of the impugned order. There is no dispute that the petitioner made imports under the cover of the Advance Licenses without payment of customs duty or on payment of customs duty at a concessional rate. The said imports were made after execution of a bond as required under Notification No.30/1997 Customs, dated 01.04.1997. The petitioner has also maintained the status of the 'star export house' till date. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the first respondent issued a Bond Enforcement cum Demand Notice on 08.02.2019 requiring the petitioner to issue Export Obligation Discharge Certificates(EODC) in respect of 24 Advance Licenses issued to the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vision Bench Judgement of the Bombay High Court, dated 19.11.2024 passed in W.P. No.4339 of 2024 in the case of Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd., vs. Union of India and 3 others, involving an identical issue and would submit that on account of the inordinate delay in issuing the show cause notice for non-production of EODCs, the Bombay High Court had quashed the impugned order. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner also drew the attention of this Court to the following authorities :- i) Raghav International v. Union of India (2023) 5 Centax 83 (Guj.) ii) Union of India v. Raghav International (2024) 20 Centax 567 (SC) iii) Union of India v. Raghav International (2024) 20 Centax 567 (SC) - [Review Petition] ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....original has to be quashed. 9. On the last hearing date on 06.06.2025, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents placed before this Court an order, dated 02.05.2025 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP(C) No.5392 of 2025 in the case of Union of India and others vs. GMR Airport Infrastuructre Ltd. Relying upon Para No.9 of the said order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the Hon'ble Supreme Court is looking into the larger issue involving inordinate delay and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also stated that if any matter comes up for hearing before the Tribunal or any of the High Courts on the subject in question, the hearing may be ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tificates(EODCs) in respect of 24 Advance Licences issued to the petitioner by DGFT during the period of 1998 and 2000, which is after a period of 17 years from the issuance of the said documents. It is also the petitioner's case that they have fulfilled all the export obligations in respect of the imports made by them between 1998 and 2000, which is the subject matter of the show cause notice issued by the respondents, which has been issued with an inordinate delay of 17 years. However it is the petitioner's case due to the long lapse of time, they are able to produce EODCs pertaining to 13 Advance Licences alone out of 24 Advance Licences. They have also categorically stated that due to the long lapse of time, the EODCs pertaining....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... (2) If the thing is done within the time specified in the bond, the [Assistant Commissioner of Customs or Deputy Commissioner of Customs] shall cancel the bond as discharged in full and shall, on demand, deliver it, so cancelled, to the person who has executed or who is entitled to receive it; and in such a case that person shall not be liable to any penalty provided in this Act or, as the case may be, in such other law for the contravention of the provisions thereof relating to the doing of that thing. (3) If the thing is not done within the time specified in the bond, the [Assistant Commissioner of Customs or Deputy Commissioner of Customs] shall, without prejudice to any other action that may be taken under this Act o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o supra pertaining to duty draw back claim have also considered the consequences of inordinate delay in issuance of show cause notice. The Constitutional Courts in those decisions while dealing with Rule 16 of Duty Drawback Rules, 1995, which also did not provide for any time limit for issuing show cause notices held that the show cause notice will have to be issued within a reasonable period and the Constitutional Courts held in those decisions that the reasonable period is three years. In those decisions as well, there was an inordinate delay in the issuance of show cause notice and the Constitutional Courts quashed the show cause notices / order-in-original on account of the inordinate delay. 15. For the foregoing reasons on account o....