Order Date – 02 January 2023

Parties: M/s. IDCOL Ferro Chrome & Alloys Ltd., Ferro Chrome Project Vs Commissioner Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Bhubaneswar and others

Facts – 

• The Petitioner, M/s. IDCOL Ferro Chrome & Alloys Ltd., Ferro Chrome Project, was served with a show cause notice dated 09.02.2010 alleging that during the period 2004-05 to 2006-07 there is violations of Rules 4, 8, 10, 11 and 12 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 (CE Rules) read with Sections 11A and 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (CE Act).
• For some reason, which is not clear, the case appears to have been transferred to ‘Call Book’ on 7th February, 2011. On 15th July 2016, it was suddenly decided to retrieve the matter from the Call Book. On 14th September 2017, this Court stayed further proceedings pursuant to the said notice. That stay order has continued since.

Issue – 

• Whether the proceeding initiated after 5 years of show cause notice is valid or not?

Order – 

• The Hon’ble High Court held that as per the decision of this Court in Maxcare Laboratories Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner, CGST, Central Excise & Custom 2021 (378) ELT 401 (Ori.) it was held that Whenever a question regarding the inordinate delay in issuance of notice of demand is raised, it would be open to the assessee to contend that it is bad on the ground of delay and it will be for the relevant officer to consider the question whether in the facts and circumstances of the case notice or demand for recovery was made within reasonable period.
• Other High Courts too have invalidated SCNs where attempts were made by the Department to revive a matter sent to the Call Book several years later. 
• Hence the writ petition is allowed and quashes the impugned SCN and all the procedure thereto.