IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 21447 OF 2022 Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd.

Pirojshanagar, Vikhroli, Mumbai 400 079 …..Petitioner Vs.

1. Union of India (Through the Secretary)

Ministry of Law and Justice, Department of Legal Affairs, Branch Secretariat, Aaykar Bhavan Annexe, 2^nd Floor, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400 020

2. Commissioner of CGST Navi Mumbai Commissionerate

16^th Floor, Satra Plaza, Sector 19D, Vashi, Navi Mumbai – 400 705

3. Joint Commissioner of CGST Navi Mumbai Commissionerate

16^th Floor, Satra Plaza, Sector 19D, Vashi, Navi Mumbai – 400 705 …..Respondents Mr. Arshad Hidayatullah, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Darius Shroff, Senior Advocate, Mr. Anupam Dighe, Ms. Shailaja Kher, Mr. Makarand Joshi and Ms. Chandni Tanna i/by India Law Alliance for Petitioner.

Mr. Jitendra B. Mishra a/w Ms. Sangeeta Yadav for Respondents.

CORAM : K. R. SHRIRAM &

A. S. DOCTOR, JJ.

DATE : 5^th AUGUST, 2022 JUDGMENT : (PER A. S. DOCTOR, J.)

1. Rule. By consent of learned counsel for parties, Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally.

2. The present Writ Petition impugns, i. Five show cause notices (“impugned notices”) issued by Respondent No.3 to Petitioner; and ii. An order dated 30^th March, 2022 (“impugned order”) passed by Respondent No. 3 against Petitioner.

3. The facts briefly stated are that between the years 2008 and 2009 Respondent No. 3 issued the impugned notices to Petitioner inter alia alleging that Petitioner had contravened provisions of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The impugned notices on this premise called upon Petitioner to show cause why Central Excise Duty along with interest and penalty should not be recovered from Petitioners. The details of the impugned notices (date, period and amount demanded) are as follows, viz.

30.01.2009 January 08 to March 08 Rs. 24,34,634-00

4. Petitioner by its letter dated 26^th July, 2008 replied to the show cause notice dated 3^rd April, 2008 and denied the allegations made therein. Thereafter, by a letter dated 8^th August, 2008 the Superintendent (Adjudication) Central Excise called upon Petitioner to furnish certain details duly certified by a Chartered Accountant. Petitioner by its letter dated 26^th September, 2008 duly submitted the information sought for.

5. Respondent No. 3 after a lapse of almost 13 years from the date of the last impugned notice, fixed a personal hearing on 28^th October, 2021. Petitioner filed written submissions on 27^th October, 2021 inter alia pointing out that the proceedings now initiated by Respondents pursuant to the impugned notices were non est and bad in law. Petitioner referred to and relied upon several judgements of this Hon’ble Court in support of the contention that since the show cause notices had not been acted upon within a reasonable period of time, the same were now stale and consequently any adjudication based thereon was bad in law and void. Petitioner thus requested Respondents to withdraw the impugned notices.

6. Respondents did not reply to Petitioner’s letter but instead, after a period of over five months fixed another date for personal hearing on 11^th March, 2022. Petitioner’s representative attended the personal hearing before Respondent No. 3 and inter alia submitted:

a. that Respondent No. 3 did not have jurisdiction to continue the proceedings since the inquiry was in respect of show cause notices which were over 13 years old.

b. that the records pertaining to the case at hand were destroyed and/or untraceable.

c. that the officers of Petitioners acquainted with the facts of the case were no longer in Petitioners employment.

d. that grave prejudice would be caused to Petitioners if the impugned notices were adjudicated upon after such an ino