1. Heard Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Tarun Gulati assisted by Mr. Sumeet Gadodia and learned counsel for the CGST and Central Excise.

2. Petitioner has inter alia prayed for the following reliefs:-

(i) For quashing of the show-cause notice bearing C.No. MP14/TGS/DD/92/970 dated 9 th December 1993 issued by respondent no. 3 pertaining to the period June 1993 to November 1993 (Annexure-5).

(ii) For prohibiting the respondents from adjudicating upon the impugned show cause dated 9 th December 1993.

(iii) For setting aside the notice bearing no. 4790 dated 30th November 2022 (Annexure-8) and notice bearing no. 5223 dated 23rd December 2022 (Annexure-10) issued by respondent no. 4 which are notices of personal hearing pertaining to the show cause dated 9 th December 1993 which again pertains to the period June 1993 to November 1993 as proceedings have been resumed after 29 years of the issuance of the show-cause and is in teeth of section 11A(11) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (CEA for short hereinafter).

3. The relevant facts as pleaded by the petitioner are dealt with briefly hereunder.

Petitioner which is engaged in the manufacture of iron and steel has a separate wing popularly known as ‘Growth Shop’ (maintenance shop) through which it used to get some of its plants and machinery manufactured/assembled/installed. Petitioner issued work order to its Growth Shop for manufacturing, assembling, erecting and testing electronic overhead cranes (for short ‘EOC’) for installation in the main steel plant of the petitioner at Jamshedpur. In terms of the work order, the growth shop of the petitioner manufactured the said cranes and cleared the same to the petitioner. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the Collector of Central Excise, Jamshedpur on 8 th February 1984 alleging that the growth shop has removed electronic overhead crane without payment of duty. It was further alleged that the growth shop wrongly availed the benefit of exemption notification no. 118/75-CE dated 30.04.1975 as the goods cleared were not parts of crane but a fully functional crane. At the relevant point of time, excise duty was payable at different rates on parts of crane and crane, which are as under :-

4. Petitioner submitted his reply and rebutted the allegations but was held exigible to excise duty @ 20% ad valorem as the adjudicating authority Collector of Central Excise held that petitioner had removed goods which were fully functional crane. Petitioner directly approached the Patna High Court in CWJC No. 3764 of 1985 which was decided against it vide judgment dated 9 th March 1987. The matter was taken up in Civil Appeal No. 782 of 1987. During pendency of the said appeal, the Central Excise Tariff Act was enacted and excise duty on cranes was reduced from 20% to 15% and excise duty on parts of crane was increased from 15% to 20%/25%. Upon the change in rate of excise duty, the Commissioner of Central Excise issued show cause notice to the petitioner asking him to show cause as to why excise duty be not levied upon him @ 20% as the petitioner had removed parts of cranes and not crane vide show cause notice dated 13th August 1990. The show cause was adjudicated against the petitioner, who preferred an appeal before learned CEGAT, Kolkata. During pendency of this appeal before the learned CEGAT, the Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the Civil Appeal No. 782 of 1987 vide judgment dated 9th February 2000 inter alia holding as follows :-

“The only question involved in these appeals is whether the E.O.T. cranes are entitled to excise duty. This question came up for consideration in Civil Appeal Nos. 4961-64 of 1989 (Collector of Central Excise & Ors. Vs. M/s Tungabhadra Steel Products Ltd. & Anr.). In view of the order of this court dated 12th February, 1997, in the said appeals, we set aside the orders of the respondents as well as of the High Court and hold that no excise duty is payable on the E.O.T. cranes as assembled.

The appeals are allowed. No order as to costs.”

5. Later on the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed by Learned CEGAT, Kolkata on 8 th December 2000. Petitioner preferred Civil Appeal No. 3973 of 2001 against the order of the learned CEGAT. It is pointed out that the show cause notice dated 13th August 1990 is related to the period January 1989 to January 1990 and thereafter several show cause notices were issued from January 1993 to February 1997. The present writ petition pertains to show cause notice dated 9 th December 1993 and relates to the period June 1993 to November 1993. Petitioner submitted his reply on 10th February 1994. During the pendency of the show cause notice Civil Appeal No. 3973 of 2001 was decided by the Apex Court by partly setting aside the order of Tribunal and remitting the matter to the Tribunal for fresh examination. No adjudication proceedings were initiated against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned show cause notice dated 9 th December 1993 till the judgment delivered by the Apex Court on 5 th May 2004. In this background, it is contended that after a lapse of 29 years a notice for personal hearing has been issued to the petitioner on 30th November 2022 fixing the date of hearing as 15th December 2022. Petitioner made a request for adjournment of personal hearing on 15th December 2022 and accordingly the matter was adjourned for eight weeks. Another notice was issued for personal hearing by respondent no. 4 on 23rd December 2022 fixing the date of hearing on 15th February 2023. Therefore, the petitioner has been compelled to approach this Court.

6. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the contents of the counter affidavit filed by the respondents pursuant to the previous order and contested the stand of the respondents inter alia on the following grounds :

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the stand of the respondents is based upon the SCN being kept in a call book pursuant to the waiver of pre deposit granted by Learned CEGAT in the year 1991. It is submitted that the impugned show cause notice is of 9 th December 1993 pertaining to the period June 1993 to November 1993 and such stand has no connection with the present SCN impugned herein.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further buttressed his stand inter alia on the following grounds:

(i) The Department never communicated to the petitioner about transfer of show cause notices to the call book prior to the filing of counter affidavit. No factual evidence has been adduced to show that the impugned show cause notice and other SCNs were transferred to the call book.

(ii) Relying upon the CBIC guidelines / circulars on the point it is submitted that none of the conditions enumerated for transfer of an SCN to the call book are made out in the case of the petitioner.

8. The conditions stipulated by CBIC circular stipulate 4 contingencies under which an SCN can be transferred to the call book: (a) cases in which department has gone in appeal to the appropriate authority, (b) cases where injunction has been issued by Supreme Court / High Court/CEGAT etc.; (c) cases where audit objections are contested; (d) cases where the Board has specifically ordered the same to be kept pending and to be entered into the call book. It is submitted that the department has not gone in appeal against the order of the learned CEGAT and therefore the first condition is not fulfilled. So far as the conditions relating to grant of injunction mentioned under Clause B is concerned, there was no matter subjudice after the judgment of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 3973 of 2001 dated 5 th May 2004. The respondents in their counter affidavit have also not given any explanation as to why even after 2004 the proceedings were not revived for adjudication of the impugned SCN till December 2022. The instant case also does not relate to an audit objection or a direction of the Board to keep the SCN in a call book. It is further submitted that as per the CBIC circulars, the case can be referred to call book only after prior approval of Jurisdictional Commissioner. In the entire counter affidavit the respondents have not annexed or brought on record any document to show that necessary approval was taken from the Jurisdictional Commissioner. It is further pointed out from the CBIC circulars issued from time to time such as Circular Nos. 385/18/98-CX dated 30th March 1998, 719/35/2003-CX dated 28 th May 2003 and 1053/2/2017-CX dated 10th March 2017 that the competent authorities have been mandated to carry out periodic monthly review of SCNs kept in a call book. The respondents have not given a semblance of an answer as to whether any such periodical review was carried out by the competent authority. Referring to the Circular dated 10th March 2017, Clause 9.4 it is also submitted that whenever a case has been transferred to the call book a formal communication should be issued to the noticee. It is submitted that various courts have disapproved of such an approach to revive an adjudication proceedings after an inordinate delay in view of the conditions stipulated under Section 11 A (11) of the CEA. The expression ‘if it is possible to do so’ used in Section 11A(11) cannot by any stretch of imagination be extended for a period of 29 years to adjudicate upon such a show-cause notice. Any such stipulation in a statute, which does not prescribe an outer period of limitation can be understood as laying down only a reasonable period of limitation which cannot be extended to an infinite period such as in the present case. It is submitted that the records relating to the said period are not available in the office of the petitioner. The officers and employees who dealt with the matter have also left the company upon superannuation or otherwise. That is why various courts have castigated such an approach on the part of the excise authorities or the customs authorities under the relevant statutes in adjudicating show cause notices after inordinate delay of nine years or more in individual cases. Reliance is placed upon the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Eastern Agencies Aromatics Private Limited Vs. Union of India & Ors. Writ Petition (L) No. 30629 of 2022 [Bom (HC)] dated 24th November 2022; in the case of Harkaran Dass Vedpal Vs. Union of India, 2019 (368) E.L.T. 546 (P & H) and also a decision of a learned Single Bench of this Court in the case of Vijay Kumar Sinha Vs. Vinoba Bhave University through its Vice-Chancellor & Ors., 2020 SCC Online Jhar 861 which of course, does not relate to a tax matter. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 12376 of 2022 passed in the case of Commissioner GST and Central Excise and Another Vrs. M/s. Shree Baba exports wherein such a view has been affirmed. Based on these submissions learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has prayed that the impugned show cause notice be quashed. He has also referred to Rule 10 (3) of the Central Excise Rules 2002 which require an assessee to keep the relevant records up to a maximum period of five years. Rule 53(2) of the Central Excise Rules 1944 also contained a similar prescription of outer limit for maintaining the records. It is submitted that any adjudication on the impugned show cause notice dated 9 th December 1993 after 29 years at this stage would be illegal and in contravention of the mandate of Section 11A(11) of the CEA 1944.

9. Learned counsel for the respondents Central Excise has defended the impugned proceedings and relied upon the contents of the show cause to support it. It is stated that impugned show cause dated 9th December 1993 was issued to the petitioner for contravention of the provisions of Rule 9(B), 52(A), 173(F) and 173(G) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 11 A of CEA, 1944 demanding differential duty of central excise so short paid by the petitioner during the material period. Besides the above, there were 10 SCNs/SODs issued upon the petitioner for subsequent period. The particulars of all 11 SCNs/SODs have been furnished in the form of a tabular chart under paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit which is also extracted hereunder :

10. The present writ petition relates to the show cause notice at serial no. 1 relating to the period from June 1993 to November 1993. It is submitted that the SCN dated 13th August 1990 was adjudicated vide order in original dated 14th January 1991. It pertains to the period January 1989 to January 1990. The Collector, Central Excise, Patna confirmed the demand. Petitioner’s appeal preferred before the learned CEGAT, Kolkata was dismissed. Thereafter, it was taken to the Apex Court. Since the matter was subjudice, all the 11 SCNs/SODs indicated above were transferred into call book by the adjudicating authority on different dates in accordance with the guidelines / circular for the time being in force. These facts were well known to the petitioner as in his reply to the SCN dated 9 th December 1993 vide letter dated 10th February 1994 petitioner themselves referred to CEGAT’s stay order and position of their SLPs, etc. filed by them before the appellate forum. It is further stated that the matter was examined and after periodical review and ascertaining the position and judicial pronouncements, all the above 11 SCNs/SODs were taken out from the call books for adjudication proceedings on 28th November 2022 by the adjudicating authority i.e. The Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise, Jamshedpur (respondent no.1). Accordingly, a date for personal hearing in respect of all 11 SCNs/SODs, as requested by the petitioner were granted by the adjudicating authority and duly communicated to the Superintendent (ADJM), CGST and Central Excise, Jamshedpur vide letter dated 30th November 2022. The petitioner has been allowed eight weeks’ time on his request and the date of personal hearing has been fixed on 15th February 2023 in respect of all the subjects 11 SCNs/SODs. After consideration of the case records SCNs/SODs, defence reply and judicial pronouncement and submissions written and oral to be made during personal hearing on 15th February 2023, the case will be decided accordingly. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that these proceedings have been rightly revived and are being adjudicated in accordance with the relevant provisions of Central Excise Act, 1944. Hence, request of the petitioner for quashing the subject SCN, as well as the letter for fixing personal hearing are unwarranted and does not hold merit.

11. Learned counsel for the respondents State submits that these impugned demand notices are in respect of short levy or short payment of duty of central excise in terms of Section 11A of the CEA and the Central Excise Rules. The officers of the central excise have been vested with powers under Section 33 A of CEA to adjudicate the show-cause notice to the noticees. They act as quasi judicial officers in that capacity. A fair opportunity to the noticee for replying the show cause notice is being given and also time for personnel hearing on his request.

12. Learned counsel for the Central Excise submits that a call book of such cases which cannot be adjudicated immediately due to certain specified reasons and adjudication is to be kept in abeyance. The categories of such cases to be transferred to call book are enumerated under para 11 page 14 of the counter affidavit, which are inter alia quoted hereunder :

i. Cases in which the Department has gone in appeal to the appropriate authority.

ii. Cases where injunction has been issued by Supreme Court/High Court/CEGAT, etc.

iii. Cases where the Board has specifically ordered the same to be kept pending and to be entered into the call book. iv. Cases admitted by the Settlement Commission may be transferred to the call-book, as it is already covered under category (ii) above. 13. He submitted that as per the conditions under Clause 2 these 11 SCNs were transferred into call book by the adjudicating authority on different dates in accordance with the guidelines / circular being enforced from time to time. Learned counsel for the CGST has also adverted to the merits of the show cause notices issued upon the petitioner starting from the SCN dated 8th February 1984 which alleged that they were supplying the EOT crane to M/s Tata Steel Limited on purchase order and the assessee had claimed exemption benefits of notification no. 118/75 dated 30th April 1975 on the ground that they were engaged in manufacturing of the parts of EOT crane. The matter was taken up to the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 782 of 1987 which was decided by judgment dated 9 th February 2000 by which the order of the High Court was set aside. It was held that no excise duty was payable on EOT cranes as assembled. The petitioner’s appeal was allowed. It is also stated that the rates of duty were changed thereafter and further show cause notice was issued on 13th August 1990 which was confirmed vide order in original dated 14th January 1991 by the Collector. Petitioner went in appeal before learned CEGAT which by its majority decision dated 8 th December 2000 held that evidence was not produced by the assessee to show that cranes were cleared by them in knocked down condition. The impugned goods cleared by them were classifiable as crane parts under sub-heading 8431.00 of CETA 1985. Petitioner again went in appeal before the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 3973 of 2001 which was also allowed vide judgment dated 5 th May 2004 in the following terms:

“This Court allowed the appeals of the appellants against the decision of the Patna High Court, set aside the orders of the respondent as well as of the High Court and held that no excise duty is payable on the E.O.T. cranes as assembled. In result we set aside this part of the order made by the Tribunal and remit the matter to it for fresh examination in the light of the order of this Court.”

14. It is further submitted that in I.A. No. 2 in Civil Appeal No. 3973 of 2001 preferred by the noticee before the Apex Court for clarification of the judgment dated 5 th May 2004 vide order dated 31st January 2005 it was held

“The prayer made in the application does not fall within the purview of clarification. The application is rejected.” (Annexure-E4).

15. Learned counsel for the respondents has also taken us to the different positions in respect of the two show cause notices one dated 8 th February 1984 wherein it was alleged that the subject notice was supplying EOT crane which was excisable community leviable to the duty but had claimed exemption by taking benefit of notification no. 118 of 75 on the ground that they were engaged in manufacturing parts of EOT crane. Subsequent SCN dated 13th August 1990 demanded differential duty of Rs. 7,60,179.60 for the period January 1989 to January 1990 alleging that he had cleared goods by classifying as “Crane, chargeable under 8426.00 of CETA, 1985” instead of “Crane Parts, chargeable under 8431.00 of CETA, 1985. These developments have been duly discussed in the earlier parts of the counter affidavit at paragraph 2.1 to 2.4. Learned counsel for the Central Excise submits that the change in the tariff rate has necessitated the issuance of the second show cause notice and similar show cause notices, one of which is impugned herein.

16. Falling back upon the CBIC circular, it is contended that the competent authority i.e. the Commissioner, Central Excise has revived the proceedings and issued a notice of personal hearing to the petitioner since these SCNs/SODs were kept in call book on account of the matter pending before different courts including the Apex Court. However, on being specifically asked learned counsel for the respondent has not been able to dispute or indicate any explanation from the stand of the respondents as reflected in the counter affidavit as to whether there was any basis for keeping the SCN in call book after the decision rendered by the Apex Court on 5th May 2004 in Civil Appeal No. 3973 of 2001. There are no materials enclosed to the counter affidavit which also goes to show that the prior approval of the jurisdictional commissioner was taken before keeping the SCN into the call book. It is also not shown from the counter affidavit whether the petitioner was ever communicated of such a decision to keep the case in the call book all along and even after disposal of the Civil Appeal No. 3973 of 2001 vide judgment dated 5th May 2004. However, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner may be relegated to participate in the adjudication proceedings and if aggrieved, invoke the alternative remedy of appeal before the appellate authority i.e. learned CESTAT.

17. We have given anxious consideration to the submission of learned counsel for the parties, taken note of the relevant material facts pleaded and borne from the records and also the CBIC circulars cited by the parties and the decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner.

18. The facts as borne out from the pleadings on record need no repetition. The impugned show cause is of 9 th December 1993 (Annexure-5) issued upon the petitioner asking them to show cause as to why the appropriate excise duty amounting to Rs. 1,67,42,847.30 be not imposed upon him under the provisions of Rules 9(B), 52A, 173(B), 173(F) and 173(G) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Section 11A of the CEA, 1944 alleging less payment of duty due to misclassification. The respondents had kept the impugned show cause notice and ten other SCNs as indicated in the chart above in the call book on the ground that the matter was subjudice. However, from the pleadings on record and also from the averments made in the counter affidavit, it appears that none of the conditions as enumerated in the CBIC circular / guidelines relied upon by the respondents and also by the petitioner stood satisfied for transferring the matter to the call book. It is not a case where the department had gone in appeal before the learned CEGAT or before the Apex Court, rather it was the petitioner who twice went up to the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 782 of 1987 against the first SCN dated 8 th February 1984 and in Civil Appeal No. 3973 of 2001 against the SCN dated 13th August 1990. The instant SCN pertains to the period June 1993 to November 1993 and is of 9th December 1993. Learned counsel for the respondents has fallen back on Clause 2 of the condition stipulated in the CBIC circular as referred to in para 11 of their counter affidavit but he has not been able to show that at any point of time there was a stay in proceeding upon the impugned show cause notice by either the CEGAT or the High Court or the Hon’ble Apex Court. Even if by stretching the argument to the extent that the show cause notice dated 13th August 1990 was subjudice before the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 3973 of 2001, there is no basis or explanation on the part of the respondents to have kept the show cause notice in its call book without proceeding for its adjudication after the judgment rendered in that case by the Apex Court on 5th May 2004. None of the other two conditions as indicated by the respondents at Clause 3 and 4 quoted above also stand satisfied in the present case. The respondents have not enclosed any document to show that prior approval of the Collector of excise was taken before keeping the case in the call book. There seems to be no reference of any periodic review of the call book, though the relevant CBIC circulars such as the circular dated 30th March 1998 and 20 th May 2003 specifically required the Commissioners to review the cases transferred to call books on a monthly basis in circumstances where the department was confronted with a situation where provisional assessment cases were kept pending for several years. The extract of the relevant circulars are quoted here under :-

In circular dated 30th March 1998 :

“While the Board had issued instructions to Commissioners to review the cases transferred to call books on a monthly basis, it is observed that no such review is actually being done. (Board’s DO Letter F.No.101/2/92-CX.3, dated 4th March 1992 and Board’s Circular No.53/90-CX.3, dated 6.9.1990).

2. The Board vide its > specified the following categories of cases which can be transferred to call book viz.:

1. Cases in which the Department has gone in appeal to the appropriate authority.

2. Cases where injection has been issued by Supreme Court/High Court/CEGAT, etc.

3. Cases where audit objections are contested.

4. Cases where the Board has specifically ordered the same to be kept pending and to be entered into the call book.”

In circular dated 28th May 2003 :

“3. It is further directed that a one-time comprehensive review of all the pending call book cases will be done by respective CCEs. The Chief Commissioner may monitor such review periodically in their respective zones. The progress report of the call book cases should continue to mention in the MTR as well as in the monthly statements of the progress achieved in “Key Result Areas”.

In circular dated 10th March 2017 :

In circular dated 10th March 2017 : “9.4 Intimation of Call Book cases to notice: A formal communication should be issued to the notice, where the case has been transferred to the call book.”

19. In this regard, it is pertinent to refer to the provisions of Section 11A of the CEA which reads as under :-

SECTION 11A OF THE CENTRAL EXCISE ACT, 1944

"SECTION 11A- Recovery of duties not levied or not paid or short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded. -

(1) Where any duty of excise has not been levied or paid or has been short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded, for any reason, other than the reason of fraud or collusion or any willful misstatement or suppression of facts or contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or of the rules made thereunder with intent to evade payment of duty,-

xxx xxx xxx

(4) Where any duty of excise has not been levied or paid or has been short-levied or short- paid or erroneously refunded by reason of -

(a) fraud; or

(b) collusion; or

(c) wilful mis-statement; or

(d) suppression of facts; or

(e) contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or of the rules made thereunder with intent to evade payment of duty. by any person chargeable with the duty, the Central Excise Officer shall, within five years from the relevant date, serve notice on such person requiring him to show cause why he should not pay the amount specified in the notice along with interest payable thereon under section 11AA and a penalty equivalent to the duty specified in the notice.

(5) Where, during the course of any audit, investigation or verification, it is found that any duty [has not been levied or paid or has been] short - levied or short - paid or erroneously refunded for the reason mentioned in clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c) or clause (d) or clause (e) of sub-clause (4) but the details relating to the transactions are available in the specified records, then in such cases, the Central Excise Officer shall within a period of five years from the relevant date, serve a notice on the person chargeable with the duty requiring him to show cause why he should not pay the amount specified in the notice along with interest under section 11AA and penalty equivalent to fifty per cent of such duty.

xxx xxx xxx

(11) The Central Excise Officer shall determine the amount of duty of excise under sub-section (10) –

(a) within six months from the date of notice where it is possible to do so, in respect of cases falling under sub-section (1); (b) within two year [substituted for one year w.e.f. 14-05-2016] from the date of notice, where it is possible to do so, in respect of cases falling under the proviso to sub-section (4) or subsection (5)].

xxx xxx xxx

20. The issue at hand has crossed the attention of the various jurisdictional High Courts such as the Bombay High Court and the Punjab and Haryana High Court of which the judgments rendered in the cases of Eastern Agencies Aromatics Private Limited Vs. Union of India & Ors,. para-14 to 17 and Harkaran Dass Vedpal Vs. Union of India, para-3, 9 and 11 to 15 have been specifically relied upon by the petitioner.

21. Petitioner has also relied upon the recent judgment of the Apex Court, in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 12376 of 2022 dated 29th July 2022 arising out from a judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court wherein the show cause notice remain unadjudicated for 11 years. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case the Apex Court refused to interfere in the matter and the special leave petition was dismissed. The decision in the case of Eastern Agencies Aromatics Private Limited (Supra) relates to the delay of nine years in adjudication of a show cause notice under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 which also contains a similar provision “if it is possible to do so”. The opinion of the learned Bombay High Court at para 14 to 17 are quoted hereunder for easy reference:

14. Perusal of the show cause notice shows that the breach alleged for initiating action for demanding the forgone import duty was on the ground of irregular exports by the exporters and breach of the provisions committed by the exporters. It is not in dispute that the Petitioner had promptly replied the show cause notice well within time in the year 2014 itself. It is further not in dispute that the Petitioner was never intimated in respect of any adjudication of the show cause notice and/or any decision of keeping the adjudication pending. Thus, the Petitioner is justified in submitting that the Petitioner was under bonafide belief that the Respondents were not interested in adjudicating the show cause notice and that the same was dropped. Though the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have sought to justify their action to revive the show cause notice after a period of 9 years, the contentions raised by the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are unreasonable and not supported by any statutory provisions.

15. We have perused the consistent view taken by this Court, that the concerned Authority is under an obligation to adjudicate upon the show cause with expediency. In our view, unreasonable and unjustified delay in adjudication of the show cause notice is in contravention of procedural fairness and is violative of principles of natural justice.

16. We find sufficient merit in the submissions made on behalf of the Petitioner that delay in adjudication of the show cause notice constitutes breach of principle of natural justice. In the present case, show cause notice issued in the year 2013 was replied by the Petitioner well within time in the year 2014 itself. The Petitioner has specifically pleaded that the previous Director of the Petitioner, who was looking after the day to day management including the import of goods expired on 19th May 2019 and that no other person was aware about the proceedings of the show cause notice. There is no dispute that the Petitioner was never intimated with respect to adjudication on the show cause notice or the same being kept in the call book. Learned counsel for the Petitioner is right in contending that the Petitioner is gravely prejudiced as the Respondents never informed the Petitioner about the show cause notice being kept in the call book and that due to passage of time the relevant papers may not be available and it will not be possible to defend the show cause notice. Petitioner is also right in contending that even otherwise pendency of proceedings was not in respect of the Petitioner. Hence it is obvious that revival of show cause notice will seriously prejudice the Petitioner.

17. In the present case, reasons given by the Respondents for the delay caused in seeking to revive the show cause notice do not constitute any reasonable ground and the delay caused is not sustainable, as the same is in breach of the principles of natural justice. Though in Affidavit-In-Reply it is sought to be contented that the period of limitation prescribed by the amending Act, 2018 is not applicable to the present show cause notice of the year 2013, nothing was argued before us in support of this contention. In our view, even otherwise the powers of such nature of adjudicating the show cause notice are required to be exercised within reasonable time. We do not find any justification for the inaction on the part of the Respondents for keeping the adjudication of the show cause notice pending and for seeking revival of the same after a period of 9 years. For the reasons recorded above, the show cause notice impugned in the Petition is required to be quashed and set aside and it is also necessary to prohibit the Respondent from adjudicating the show cause notice any further.”

22. Similar is the view expressed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of GPI Textiles Limited Vrs. Union of India [2018 (362) ELT 388 (P&H)] where the show cause notices issued under Section 11 A of the Central Excise Act 1944 were kept pending for 16 years. The present case is a gross one as the impugned show cause notice are kept pending since 9 th December 1993 for 29 years and even if some explanation on the part of the respondents relating to pendency of Civil Appeal No. 3793 of 2001 till 05.05.2004 is accepted, there is no justification for not proceeding upon the impugned show cause notice for 18 years thereafter till the impugned notice of personal hearing has been served upon the petitioner. Adjudication of such a show cause notice after 29 years would be contrary to the mandate of Section 11A(11) of the CEA 1944 and would lead to unreasonable and arbitrary results. Such proceedings therefore stands vitiated due to inordinate and unreasonable delay and are accordingly fit to be quashed. Accordingly, the impugned show-cause notice dated 9 th December 1993 is quashed. The notices of personal hearing dated 30th November 2022 and 23rd December 2022 are also quashed.

23. The writ petition is allowed in the manner and to the extent indicated herein above. Pending interlocutory application seeking stay is closed.