TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 538
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oceedings pursuant to Show Cause Notice No. 16/2020 dated 11.05.2020 (hereinafter referred to as 'Second SCN'), the connected Writ Petition, W.P.(C) No.5024/2024, assails the Order-in-Original dated 01.02.2024 (hereinafter referred to as 'Impugned Order') passed in respect of Show Cause Notice No. 11/2017 dated 27.03.2017 (hereinafter referred to as 'First SCN'). Since both matters emanate from the same investigation and involve overlapping issues, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The dispute traces its origin to an investigation initiated by the DRI in the year 2016 in relation to the Petitioners' imports. The investigation led to the issuance of the First SCN in 2017 and, subsequently, the Second SCN in 2020. The First SCN pertained to the goods seized during the course of investigation, whereas the Second SCN related to the Petitioners' earlier imports and proposed recovery of customs duty, interest and penalty under the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Both SCNs were thereafter assigned to the same adjudicating authority and taken up together for adjudication. 3. The Petitioners, by way of the present ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... such matters be transferred to the Call Book. Consequently, according to the Petitioners, adjudication proceedings in respect of both SCNs remained pending for some time before being resumed. 9. The Respondents, on the other hand, contend that the adjudication proceedings were conducted strictly in accordance with the statutory framework. It is their case that the Petitioners were afforded several opportunities of personal hearing but repeatedly sought adjournments and failed to participate in the proceedings. The Respondents further assert that, pursuant to the matter being withdrawn from the Call Book following the amendments introduced by the Finance Act, 2022, the period available for adjudication recommenced in terms of Section 28(9A) of the Act and, in view of the volume of matters restored for adjudication, the competent authority granted an extension of time on 06.03.2023 for completion of the adjudication proceedings. 10. As no adjudication order had been passed in respect of Second SCN, the Petitioners instituted W.P.(C.) No. 16149/2023 before this Court, raising various challenges to the continuation of adjudication proceedings, including those founded on Section ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... expired and the subsequent extension granted by the competent authority was neither valid in law nor communicated to the Petitioners. Further, the failure to communicate the extension order vitiates the continuation of the proceedings. iv. The Respondents cannot derive any benefit from placing the matter in the Call Book pursuant to the CBIC Instruction dated 17.03.2021. The statutory timelines prescribed under Section 28 of the Act cannot be defeated by executive instructions and that the proceedings had become time-barred even otherwise. v. The Respondents themselves had treated both SCNs as constituting one composite adjudication by appointing a common Adjudicating Authority and issuing common notices of hearing. Having adopted such a course, it was not open to the Respondents to segregate the proceedings after the stay granted by this Court and adjudicate only one of the SCNs. 14. Per contra, Learned Senior Standing Counsel representing the Respondents, whose submissions were substantially on similar lines, contended as under: i. Both Writ Petitions are misconceived and deserve to be dismissed. The adjudication proceedings have been conducted stri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er dated 01.02.2024 is concerned, the interim order passed by this Court on 14.12.2023 was confined only to further proceedings pursuant to the Second SCN and did not operate as a restraint upon adjudication of the First SCN. The two SCNs are distinct proceedings, notwithstanding that they originated from the same investigation, and there existed no legal impediment to the Adjudicating Authority proceeding with the First SCN. 15. No other submissions were advanced on behalf of the learned Senior Standing Counsel and learned Counsel representing the parties. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS: 16. The controversy before this Court arises in somewhat peculiar circumstances. Both the First SCN and the Second SCN admittedly emanate from the same investigation undertaken by the DRI. Both were assigned to the same Adjudicating Authority. They were also taken up together for adjudication. 17. It is not in dispute that the two SCNs were issued on different dates. They relate to different subject matters. The First SCN concerns the goods seized during the course of investigation and proposes confiscation and consequential penalties. The Second SCN concerns earlier imports and proposes recove....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....quate opportunity of hearing was denied, particularly in view of the medical condition of the proprietor of Petitioner No.1 and the prevailing COVID-19 pandemic. 25. The Respondents, however, dispute these assertions. According to them, several opportunities of personal hearing were granted over a considerable period and the Petitioners repeatedly sought adjournments without participating in the proceedings. 26. These rival assertions raise disputed questions relating to the conduct of the adjudication proceedings. Whether all relied upon documents were supplied, whether sufficient opportunity was granted, whether the adjournments sought were justified and whether any prejudice was occasioned thereby are matters which necessarily require examination of the adjudication record. 27. Such questions are ordinarily examined by the statutory appellate authority while considering the validity of the adjudication order. They are not issues which persuade this Court to bypass the statutory appellate mechanism provided under the Act. 28. This Court is equally unable to accept the submission that the Impugned Order should be set aside solely because it was passed after the interim....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... validly transferred to the Call Book pursuant to the CBIC Instruction dated 17.03.2021. After the Finance Act, 2022, and the consequential notification, the proceedings were withdrawn from the Call Book. Thereafter, the period available for adjudication recommenced under Section 28(9A) of the Act. Since a large number of matters stood revived simultaneously, the competent authority validly granted extension on 06.03.2023. It is further submitted that there exists no statutory requirement requiring communication of such extension to the noticee. 35. The Respondents have also relied upon the decision of this Court in Pranij Heights India (supra) as well as the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Shri Ram Agro Chemicals (supra) in support of the proposition that non-communication of the extension order does not invalidate the proceedings. The Petitioners, on the other hand, have relied upon the pendency of proceedings before the Supreme Court in GMR Airport Infrastructure (supra) and other connected matters. 36. In the considered opinion of this Court, it would not be appropriate to render any conclusive finding on the aforesaid questions in the present proceedings....