CMA-CGM Agencies (India) Pvt. Ltd.) (Formerly known as APL (India) Pvt Vs The Union of India and Commissioner, CGST & C. Ex.) Navi Mumbai.

Order date – 17 January 2023

Facts

• The petitioner, CMA-CGM Agencies (India) Pvt. Ltd, were holding separate Service tax registrations and pursuant to an audit conducted for the period 2004-05 to 2007-08, the Delhi office of the Petitioner was issued a Show Cause cum Demand Notice dated 12 October 2009 by the Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi.
• Vide letter dated 30 December 2009, the Petitioner fled its reply to the said show cause cum demand notice denying the allegations made therein. 
• Thereafter, pending adjudication of the said show cause cum demand notice, the Petitioner, obtained Centralized Service Tax Registration at Mumbai with effect from 9 September 2010.
• Thereafter, after a period of seven years from the date of communication of centralized registration, vide letter dated 3 August 2020, 10 August 2020 and 24 August 2020, the Petitioner was called for personal hearing in respect of the subject show cause cum demand notice.

Issue:

• Whether adjudicating process again initiated in the year 2020 is valid ?

Order

• The Court observed that as per the Trade Notice after centralized registration, it was the duty of the Divisional Officer to send intimation and to transfer the relevant records for taking further action, the records, admittedly, came to be transferred only on 24 January 2019.
• Even the Petitioner had, vide letter dated 8 May 2013, informed the commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III that it had obtained Centralized registration under the jurisdiction at Mumbai (Respondent No.2) and requested to transfer the case files to Respondent No.2. But, despite all this, no steps were taken to transfer the files or to adjudicate the subject show cause cum demand notice for several years.
• Relying on the case of Parle International Ltd. vs. Union of India wherein it was observed that proceedings should be concluded within a reasonable period and proceedings that are not concluded within a reasonable period, which the Court on the facts of each case has to consider, may not be allowed to be proceeded further. 
• The court thus held that the impugned show cause cum demand notice dated 12 October 2009 cannot be carried forward after such an inordinate delay.
• The appeal is allowed.