Page 157 - ELT_1st June 2020_VOL 372_Part 5th

2020 ] INFRA DREDGE SERVICES PVT. LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA 691

8. As far as the impugned order dated 9-6-2015, (Impugned in W.P. No.
38433 of 2015) to suspend the petitioner’s Customs Brokers License is concerned
and its subsequent extension though in terms of Regulation 19, nevertheless is
liable to be quashed at this point of time as the impugned notice dated 7-7-2015 is
being quashed as being issued beyond the period of limitation. Therefore, there
is no justification keeping the petitioners’ license suspended any longer. There-
fore, impugned order dated 9-6-2015 (impugned in W.P. No. 38433 of 2015) is
also quashed.
9. In the light of the above discussion, both the writ petitions are al-
lowed with consequential relief to the petitioner. Consequently, connected mis-
cellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.

_________

2020 (372) E.L.T. 691 (Bom.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Nitin Jamdar and M.S. Karnik, JJ.
INFRA DREDGE SERVICES PVT. LTD.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA
Writ Petition No. 3625 of 2019, decided on 29-1-2020
Adjudication order - Delay of 6 months between hearing and pro-
nouncement of order - Such order having been passed without considering the
provision of law properly and the affidavit of petitioner placing certain factual
position on record supported by decisions of Tribunal, which is attributable to
the delay happened in its passing, not sustainable as the same has caused
prejudice to the petitioner - Matter directed to be adjudicated afresh by adju-
dicating authority - Sections 122 and 122A of Customs Act, 1962. [paras 6, 8, 9,
10, 11, 12, 13, 15]
Writ jurisdiction - Invocation thereof when adjudication order passed
after six months of conclusion of personal hearing and without considering
statutory provisions, affidavit of assessee and decisions produced by him -
Writ petition against such order can be entertained despite availability of ap-
pellate remedy before CESTAT - Article 226 of Constitution of India. [paras 6,
7, 8, 14]
Petition disposed of
CASES CITED
EMCO Ltd. v. Union of India — 2015 (319) E.L.T. 28 (Bom.)
= 2017 (51) S.T.R. 475 (Bom.)— Relied on ................................................................... [Paras 6, 8, 13, 15]
Reliance Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2014 (36) S.T.R. 820 (Tribunal)
— Relied on ...................................................................................................................................... [Para 12]
Shivsagar Veg. Restaurant v. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax
— 2008 (232) E.L.T. 780 (Bom.) = 2009 (13) S.T.R. 11 (Bom.) — Relied on ......................... [Paras 6, 8]
DEPARTMENTAL CLARIFICATION CITED
C.B.E. & C. Circular, dated 10-3-2017 .............................................................................................. [Paras 6, 13]
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st June 2020  157