Page 166 - ELT_1_1st April 2020_Vol 372_Part

52 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

hi, in its wisdom, has rightly provided that in the case of different show cause
notices issued on the same issue answerable to different adjudicating authorities,
show cause notice involving the same issue shall be adjudicated by the adjudicat-
ing authority competent to decide the case involving the highest amount of duty.
Admittedly, first show cause notice C No. DZU/INV/CE/G/49/2013/1550,
dated 1-3-2016 containing denial and recovery of Cenvat credit of Rs.
22,45,79,860/- along with interest, besides invocation of penal provisions, had
the highest amount of duty as compared to denial and recovery of Cenvat credit
of Rs. 12,86,71,912/- along with interest besides invocation of penal provisions
contained in another show cause notice C No. V(H)Adj/CE-74/Alw/132/2017,
dated 2-5-2017, which culminated in the impugned Order-in-Original.
10. Argument of the respondents that request of Petitioner No. 1 for
transferring the case to the Additional Director General, Directorate General of
Central Excise Intelligence, Delhi Zonal Unit, New Delhi did not fall within the
power of the adjudicating authority of the present case i.e. the Commissioner,
Central Excise and Service Tax Commissionerate, Alwar, is wholly without any
substance as it was always open for him to make a request to the competent au-
thority seeking appropriate order of transfer of the case to the Adjudicating Au-
thority at New Delhi.
11. In view of above discussion, present writ petition deserves to suc-
ceed and is accordingly allowed. Impugned Order-in-Original is set aside. Pro-
ceedings pursuant to show cause notice C No. V(H)Adj/CE-74/Alw/132/2017,
dated 2-5-2017 are revived to be transferred to the Additional Director General,
Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence, Delhi Zonal Unit, New Delhi
for decision with the proceedings initiated pursuant to first show cause notice C
No. DZU/INV/CE/G/49/2013/1550, dated 1-3-2016 in accordance with law.
12. Stay Application No. 3965/2018 stands disposed of.

_______

2020 (372) E.L.T. 52 (Guj.)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
S.R. Brahmbhatt and A.G. Uraizee, JJ.
APOLLO TYRES LIMITED
Versus
UNION OF INDIA
R/Special Civil Application No. 16157 of 2018, decided on 10-1-2019
1
Adjudication - Call book delay in adjudication on account of transfer
of show cause notice in call book - Keeping show cause notices in call book for
a long period without disclosing any reasons vitiates entire adjudication pro-
ceedings - Such show cause notices cannot be processed further and quashed -
Sections 33 and 33A of Central Excise Act, 1944. [paras 8, 9, 10]
Petition disposed of
________________________________________________________________________
1 In appeal against this order, notice was issued by Supreme Court in 2020 (372) E.L.T. A19
(S.C.).
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st April 2020  214