Page 158 - ELT_1st June 2020_VOL 372_Part 5th

692 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

REPRESENTED BY : Shri Sriram Sridharan, for the Petitioner.
Shri J.B. Mishra, for the Respondent.
[Order]. - P.C. : Heard Learned Counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Commissioner
of CGST and Central Excise, Thane - Respondent No. 2, dated 12 July, 2019.
3. The petitioner provides dredging services. A show cause notice came
to be issued to the petitioner on 19 March, 2013. The demand was made for three
periods. First was regarding ‘Management, Maintenance or Repair Service’ un-
der the Reverse Charge Mechanism for the period April, 2008 to March, 2012. For
a period April, 2009 to March, 2012 for ‘Supply of Tangible Goods for Use Ser-
vice’ under Reverse Charge Mechanism. For a period 7 May, 2010 to 16 Novem-
ber, 2010 for ‘Supply of Tangible Goods for Use Service’ and for ‘Dredging Ser-
vice’ for a period 26 November, 2009 to 23 February, 2010.
4. By order dated 30 September, 2015, demand was confirmed against
ex parte. The petitioner filed a writ petition in this Court. By directing the peti-
tioner to deposit an amount of Rs. 25,00,000/-, this Court quashed and set aside
the order and directed that the petitioner be heard after the deposit of the
amount. Proceedings were relegated to the Commissioner.
5. The petitioner appeared for hearing on 3 January, 2019 and submit-
ted documentary evidence. By the impugned order dated 29 July, 2019 the
Commissioner confirmed the demand totalling to Rs. 18,31,80,394/- under Sec-
tion 73 of the Act was confirmed. Hence this petition.
6. We have heard Learned Counsel for the parties. Learned Counsel for
the petitioner relied upon the decisions in the case of Shivsagar Veg. Restaurant v.
Asstt. Commr. of Income Tax, Mumbai [ITXA No. 144 of 2006, decided on 14 No-
vember, 2008 = 2008 (232) E.L.T. 780 (Bom.) = 2009 (13) S.T.R. 11 (Bom.)] and
EMCO Ltd. v. Union of India [Writ Petition No. 12124 of 2013, decided on 11 Feb-
ruary, 2014. = 2015 (319) E.L.T. 28 (Bom.) = 2017 (51) S.T.R. 475 (Bom.)]. He sub-
mitted that there is not only delay of six months from conclusion of the argument
till pronouncement of order but because of this delay gross errors have occurred
in the order which has caused severe prejudice to the petitioner. Learned Coun-
sel also relied upon the Circular issued by the Central Board of Excise and Cus-
toms dated 10 March, 2017 laying down guidelines for adjudicating authorities
while adjudicating the matters, more particularly Clause 14.10 thereto. It is con-
tended that in view of this the writ petition be entertained without relegating the
petitioner to the appellate remedy.
7. Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that all contentions
raised by the petitioner could be raised by the petitioner before the Appellate
Authority and merely because statutory pre-deposit is mandated, the petitioner
cannot invoke writ jurisdiction.
8. The factum of delay of six months in passing the order after the hear-
ing was concluded is not in dispute. The Division Bench of this Court in the case
of Shivsagar Veg. Restaurant had observed thus :-
“11. Having said so, the inordinate unexplained delay in pronouncement
of the impugned judgment has also rendered it vulnerable.
12. The Learned Counsel for the appellant has referred to various judg-
ments of the Apex Court as well as of this Court and various other High
Courts to show that only on the ground of delay in rendering the judgment
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st June 2020  158