Page 169 - ELT_1_1st April 2020_Vol 372_Part

2020 ] APOLLO TYRES LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA 55

the impugned show cause notices had earlier raised with respect to the petition-
er’s operation in Kerala. The said dispute stood resolved in favour of the peti-
tioner by order dated 8-2-2005 passed by the CESTAT, Bangalore. It also emerges
that it is undisputed fact that it only after filing of the present petition, the con-
cerned respondent has resurrected the dormant impugned show cause notice
from call book and issued communication dated 3-12-2018 to the petitioner for
personal hearing in respect of the impugned show cause notice.
9. It is an undisputed fact that the issue of impugned show cause notic-
es was the subject matter with respect to the petitioner operation in Kerala. The
issue has been finally resolved in favour of the petitioner by an order dated 8-2-
2005 passed by the CESTAT, Bangalore, in appeal preferred by the Revenue. The
respondents after keeping the impugned show cause notices in the call book,
have not chosen to follow up it for unduly long period. It is very evident from
the affidavit in reply filed by the respondents that it was only after the filing of
this petition, the impugned show cause notices have been taken out from the call
book and notice for personal hearing was issued to the petitioner. The act on the
part of the respondents of keeping the impugned show cause notices in call book
for unduly long period, without disclosing any reason for delay is arbitrary in
exercise of powers and is also in violation of provisions of Section 11A of the
Customs Act. It would in our opinion vitiate the entire proceedings.
10. Similar issue raised for consideration before this Court in the cases
of Parimal Textiles v. Union of India reported in 2018 (8) G.S.T.L. 361 (Guj.), M/s.
Siddhi Vinayak Syntex Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and Shivkurpa Processors Pvt. Ltd. v. Union
of India reported in 2018 (362) E.L.T. 773 (Guj.). In the case of Shivkrupa (supra),
this Court has held as under :
“10. We have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the doc-
uments on record. The undisputed aspect that emerged from the proceed-
ings would unequivocally indicate that notice dated 22-8-2002 did not re-
sult into any order for quite sometime and as per say of respondent, it was
consigned to the call book as per the circulars prevalent. The authority ap-
peared to have proceeded with broad aspect of the matter that non-receipt
of the said notice cannot be said to be established by the noticee and based
thereupon, recording findings that concerned authorized person of the peti-
tioner Company, who also is the signatory to this petition, did receive the
notice and therefore, it cannot be in any manner correct on the part of the
petitioners to say that there was no knowledge of existence of show cause
notice dated 22-8-2002. We are of the view that this contention needs to be
examined in light of the principles underlying the law, which is by now set-
tled that inordinate delay in adjudication results into denial of principles of
natural justice and that proposition cannot be said to be nonest in the pre-
sent proceedings. The receipt of notice dated 22-8-2002 and findings rec-
orded thereon would pale into insignificance, if the same is to be viewed in
light of observations of the Court in case of Siddhi Vinayak Syntex Pvt. Ltd.
(supra), Alidhara Textile Engineers Ltd. (supra) and other decisions cited as
bar.
11. The ground of alternative remedy is also does not impress this Court
in any manner, as there is clear violation of principles of natural justice,
which cannot be overlooked by any authority, therefore, this ground is also
not available to respondent.

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st April 2020  217