Abhay Ahuja DECISION
Ujjal Bhuyan, J.
1. Heard Mr. Bharat Raichandani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sham Walve, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. This is a petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Initially the writ petition was filed seeking a direction to the respondents for a declaration that adjudication of the show-cause notices dated 01.06.2006 and 28.11.2006 after 13 years is illegal, void and bad in law and on that ground to quash the said show-cause notices. Subsequently following amendment of the writ petition, petitioner has challenged legality and validity of the order-in-original dated 11.11.2019 issued by respondent No. 3 in terms of the above two show-cause notices.
3. Case of the petitioner is that it is a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Silvassa, Dadra and Nagar Haveli. Petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacture of excisable goods falling under Chapter No. 39 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Petitioner was registered under the central excise department and used to file returns in accordance with the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the rules made thereunder. It is also stated that petitioner was availing CENVAT credit on inputs and capital goods under CENVAT credit rules of different years.
4. A show-cause notice dated 01.06.2006 under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was issued by the Joint Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Vapi alleging amongst others that petitioner had availed excess CENVAT credit amounting to Rs. 11,52,281.00. This was followed by another show-cause notice dated 28.11.2006 issued to the petitioner by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Vapi alleging amongst others that petitioner had wrongly availed excess CENVAT credit of Rs. 98,324.00.
5. Petitioner responded to the above show-cause notices by submitting detailed replies on 04.09.2006 and 25.01.2007 respectively denying the allegations made against it.
6. Thereafter nothing was heard by the petitioner and there was no communication to the petitioner either from the office of Joint Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs or Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs. Since no consequential decision was taken, petitioner was under the bona fide belief that the central excise authorities had accepted its reply submissions and had given a quietus to the matter.
7. After about 13 years, petitioner was served with a letter dated 13.08.2019 issued from the office of respondent No. 3 informing the petitioner that in connection with the two show-cause notices dated 01.06.2006 and 28.11.2006, a personal hearing was fixed on 21.08.2019. This letter was followed by subsequent letters dated 23.08.2019 and 04.09.2019.
8. Being aggrieved by the attempt of the respondents to revive the show-cause notices after a lapse of almost 13 years, petitioner filed the present writ petition on 06.09.2019 seeking a direction to the respondents for a declaration that such delayed adjudication would render the show-cause notices and consequential proceedings null and void.
9. When the case was taken up on 19.12.2019, learned counsel for the petitioner had to apprise the Court that after filing of the writ petition, order-in-original was passed on 11.11.2019 only to frustrate hearing of the grievance of the petitioner by the Court. On 19.12.2019, this Court had passed the following order:-
"2. The Petitioner has challenged the show-cause notices dated 1 June 2006, 28 November 2006 and subsequent letters issued to t........