TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 533
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly, dismissed the appeal filed by the Appellant. 2. The Appellant has assailed the impugned order mainly on the grounds of non-issuance of a show cause notice as mandated under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 and inordinate delay in adjudication spanning nearly twenty-three (23) years. 3. The relevant facts, briefly stated, are as follows. On 12.09.1990, the Appellant, M/s. Hindustan Copper Ltd., imported a consignment of tyres, tubes and flaps. The goods were duly assessed and the Appellant paid all applicable duties, including Countervailing Duty (CVD) and Special Additional Duty (SAD), whereupon the goods were cleared from customs. On 26.04.1991, upon a review of the assessment, the Appellant formed the opinion that excess CVD ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he proceedings. The Adjudicating Authority passed the Order-in-Original dated 22.03.2018, confirming the recovery of Rs.8,42,613/- together with applicable interest. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), by the impugned order dated 27.12.2021, mechanically endorsed the adjudication order and dismissed the appeal. 6. Having regard to the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the Appellant and the learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue, and upon a careful examination of the records, the following issues arise for determination in this appeal: - (i) Whether the initiation of recovery proceedings without issuing a show cause notice in the form and manner mandated by Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 is legall....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ause notice The learned Counsel for the Appellant has urged, with considerable force, that no show cause notice was ever issued to the Appellant in compliance with Section 28 of Customs Act, 1962 which clearly envisage that issue of show cause notice is mandatory to the person to whom erroneous refund has been made. He submits that the department proceeded to adjudication solely on the basis of the demand notice dated 18.12.1995. The learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue has, in response, contended that the demand notice itself served the substantive purpose of a show cause notice by apprising the Appellant of its liability, and that there was, therefore, substantial compliance with the statutory requirement. 10. Thi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eeding is vitiated at the root. 12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Metal Forgings v. Union of India; reported in 2002 (146) ELT 241 (SC), has laid down that the issuance of a show cause notice in the prescribed form and manner is a mandatory requirement of law. The notice must call upon the noticee to show cause if he has any objection to the proposed demand. No such invitation was extended to the Appellant in the present case. The demand notice dated 18.12.1995, as claimed to be issued u/s. 28 ibid, was a unilateral communication directing deposit of money. It was not a notice that called upon the Appellant to show cause why the demand should not be confirmed. The adjudication that followed was therefore without a valid show cause no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le time, such that the party retains the ability to effectively exercise its right of defence. Adjudication after a delay of two decades irreparably erodes this right. No party can be reasonably expected to preserve business records, maintain institutional memory of routine import transactions, or produce witnesses after the passage of nearly a quarter century. 16. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court has, in an analogous context, recognised this principle unequivocally. In Parle International Ltd. v. Union of India; 2021 (375) ELT 633 (Bom.), it has been held by the Hon'ble High Court that adjudication after a delay of more than a decade defeats the very purpose of issuing a show cause notice, rendering the proceeding fundamentally unjust.....