Point of Law: Proceedings under section 11A of Act are adjudicatory proceedings and authority which decides same is a quasi-judicial authority. Such proceedings are strictly governed by statutory provisions. Section 11A of Act as it stood at relevant time when show cause notice came to be issued, provided for issuance of notice within six months from relevant date in ordinary cases and within five years in case where extended period of limitation is invoked

ORDER :

(PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN)

1. With the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

2. By this petition, inter alia, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for quashing and setting aside the impugned Less Charge Demand Notice being F.No.B/E No.F- 1434./02.11.04 dated 2.8.2007.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner No.1 - company is, inter alia, engaged in the business of developing, operating and maintaining the Port and Port based related infrastructure facilities, including multi product Special Economic Zone.

3.1 On 1.3.2002, the Central Government issued a Notification No.27/2002 by which, leased machinery, equipment and tools temporarily imported for execution of contract were eligible for concessional rate of duty at the rate of 15% of the aggregate duties of customs, i.e. total duty leviable under the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1962'), if they are re-exported within six months. The said notification was followed by another Notification No.54/2003 dated 1.4.2003, exempting spares, office equipments and furniture, professional equipments and consumables, but excluding agricultural and dairy products, when imported into India against a duty free service entitlement credit certificate issued under paragraph 3.8 of Export and Import Policy. Yet another Circular No.59/2004 dated 21.10.2004 was issued by the Government of India pertaining to the new schemes under Foreign Trade Policy for the period 2004 - 2009.

3.2 It is the case of the petitioner No.1 - company that in the year 2004, it imported certain second hand equipments, i.e. capital goods/professional equipments, more particularly, as mentioned in the Less Charge Demand Notice dated 2.8.2007 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Demand Notice'). This led to issuance of the Demand Notice dated 2.8.2007, demanding duty to the tune of Rs.25,03,414/- on the basis of bill of entries filed for imported second hand equipment. It has been alleged that the petitioner No.1 - company in spite of availing the benefit of Notification No.27/2002, have debited the same duty under DFCE Certificate in terms of Notification No.54/2003 - Cus., dated 1.4.2003. In the Demand Notice, it is the case of the Revenue that the capital goods imported by the petitioner No.1 - company on re-export basis and assessed to duty at concessional rate under Notification No.27/2002, the ownership of the goods was not vested in the petitioner and in view of the condition No.2 of the Notification No.54/2003 dated 1.4.2003 as amended, the goods so imported against the license issued to the petitioner No.1 company shall not be transferred or sold. It is alleged that in view of the same, the petitioner has contravened the provisions of DFSECC Scheme benefit of exemption under the Notification No.54/2003 awarded was not admissible.

3.3 In response to the Demand Notice dated 2.8.2007, that the petitioner No.1 - company filed its reply dated 8.10.2007, inter alia, denying all the allegations levelled in the notice. It clarified that the goods in question under import have not been transferred or sold to any other person, but the same have been re-exported after their actual use in the premises of the petitioner No.1 - company. It denied that there was any violation of the conditions of Notification No.54/2003.

3.4 It is averred that after issuance of the Demand Notice dated 2.8.2007 and filing of the reply by the petitioner on 8.10.2007, nothing was heard from the authorities concerned. It is the say of the petitioners that approximately 11 years have passed; however, no steps have been taken by the concerned respondent for proceeding with the adjudication of the Demand Notice dated 2.8.2007, that the petitioner No.1 - company is constrained to file the present petition.

4. The respondents, apropos the issuance of the notice by this Court, have filed the c