The legal principle established in the judgment is that the attempt to revive adjudication proceedings after an inordinate delay must be justified and reasonable, in line with the legal framework for the expeditious disposal of show cause notices.

JUDGMENT

S. Muralidhar, C. J. - The challenge in this writ petition by M/s. Maxcare Laboratories Ltd. (MLL) is to a show cause notice dated 29th March, 2000 (Annexure-1) issued by the Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs, Bhubaneswar-I (Opposite Party No.2) as well as a further notice dated 28th December, 2017 (Annexure-3) issued by the Superintendent (ADJN), CGST, Central Excise and Customs, Bhubaneswar (Opposite Party No.3) and a notice dated 9 th January, 2018 (Annexure-5) issued by the said officer.

2. The background facts are that the Petitioner is a company carrying on business of manufacturing of perfumed hair oil and red tooth powder having its plant at Mancheswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar. It is stated that the plant has been closed since long and the Petitioner has no business operation in the State of Odisha.

3. The first impugned show cause notice (SCN) was issued by the Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs (Opposite Party No.2) proposing a demand of excise duty in the sum of Rs.75,65,511/- invoking the extended period of limitation in terms of the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 ('CE Act') and Rules 9 (2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 ('CE Rules').

4. The SCN alleged that the Petitioner had suppressed production of perfumed hair oil and red tooth powder and removed surreptitiously the said excisable goods without payment of central excise duty during the year 1994-95. The SCN further stated that in course of verification of the RT-5 returns of the Petitioner for the year 1994-95. It was observed that the Petitioner had not shown the expected production as per the production norms which had been declared by letter dated 16th December, 1995. The suppressed quantity, according to SCN, works out to 3,19,961.00 liters of perfumed hair oil and 1,23,608 kg of red tooth powder which were in contravention of Rules 53, 173G and 226 of the CE Rules.

5. The Petitioner replied to the SCN on 16th December, 1995 submitting details of raw material/packing material as well as the tentative input-output ratio. According to the Petitioner, it had also submitted the statement on 3rd March, 2000 before the Superintendent, Central Excise, Bhubaneswar-I Range stating that "they do not have any fixed input output ratio due to wastage/variation in quality of raw material". It was further pointed out that the allegation regarding suppression was made solely on the basis of consumption of one of the raw materials i.e. ground nut oil in case of perfumed hair oil and garric powder in case of red tooth powder instead of considering all types of raw materials and packing materials.

6. Treating the above reply dated 3rd March 2000 to be not convincing, the impugned SCN was issued on 29th March, 2000. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the Petitioner responded to the said SCN on 27th April 2000, a copy of which has been enclosed as Annexure-1 to this petition.

7. Thereafter the Petitioner did not hear anything from the Opposite Parties and all of a sudden, more than 17 years later on 28th December, 2017 received a fresh SCN on the same issue with reference to the earlier SCN dated 29th March, 2000 and stating that a personal hearing was fixed on 9th January, 2018.

8. The Petitioner on the same day i.e. on 9th January, 2018 prayed for an adjournment of four weeks as the issue pertains to a very old period and the persons dealing with the matter had already left the company. Efforts were being made to collect information from different sources.

9. On 9th January, 2018 a fresh notice was issued to the Petitioner fixing the next date of hearing on 18th January, 2018. The Petitioner made another request on 18th January, 2018 for adjournment by four weeks Thereafter the present petition was filed.

10. When this petition was listed first on 22nd March 2018, notice was issued to the Opposite Parties and further proceedings pursuant to the aforementioned notice was stayed.

11. Since then a reply was filed by t