ORAL JUDGMENT: (per BHARATI DANGRE, J.)

1. These two Writ Petitions are filed by the Computer Graphics Private Limited, an Assessee, holder of Central Excise Registration Certificate, engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods, namely, photographic color paper, graphic art film and medical X- Ray falling within the purview of Central Excel Tariff Act, 1985 and which has availed CENVAT credit input capital goods and services in relation to the manufacture of their final products in terms of Rule 3 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.

The Petitioner raise challenge to the delay in adjudication of the two show causes notices issued to it, by filing two Writ Petitions; in Writ Petition No. 2052 of 2025 (F), the show cause cum demand notice is issued on 04.01.2017 whereas in Writ Petition No. 2054 of 2025 (F), the show cause cum demand notice is dated 16.03.2016.

2. The impugned show cause notice dated 16.03.2016, issued for the period from April 2011 to June 2015 allege that the Assessee has contravened the provisions of Section 4(3)(d) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 in as much as it has failed to include the transaction value of such amount of VAT/CST, which though recovered from the buyers instead of being remitted to the Government was retained, under the deferment scheme. Apart from this, the notice also allege violation of Rule 6 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 in as much as it fail to determine the correct value, by not including the additional consideration in form of CST flowing from the buyers to the Assessee which was retained by it.

The show cause notice issued on 04.01.2017 cover the period from July 2010 to March 2011 and exactly identical accusation under Section 4(3)(d) of Central Excise Act, 1944 and Rule 6 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 is levelled against the Petitioner.

3. We have heard Mr. Raichandani for the Petitioner, who marked his appearance online along with learned Counsel, Mr. Vibhav Amonkar, who is physically present in the Court and Ms. Asha Desai representing the Revenue.

The objection raised by Mr. Raichandani to the adjudication of the notices issued in the year 2016 and 2017 is based upon abnormal delay in adjudicating the notices and he would place reliance upon catena of decisions of the coordinate Benches, which has quashed adjudication of the show cause notices as they were sought to be adjudicated after a considerable length of time and in particular, reliance is placed upon the decision of this Court in the case of Sanghvi Reconditioners Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Others, (1 2017 SCC Online BOM 9781), to which one of us (Justice Bharati Dangre) is a party.

In addition, he would also place reliance on the decision in case of ATA Freight Line India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India, (2 2022 SCC Online BOM 648), delivered on 24.03.2020, which has attained finality as a Special Leave Petition filed against this decision is dismissed by the Apex Court on 10.02.2023.

4. Responding to the challenge, the Respondents have filed an affidavit, wherein it is stated that the show cause notices issued to the Petitioner were transferred to the Call Book in terms of the Board's instructions issued vide circulars dated 14.12.1995 and 28.05.2003, where the board has specified certain categories of cases to be transferred, which include the cases in which the Department has gone in Appeal before the appropriate Authority or the cases where injunction has been issued by the Supreme Court/High Court/CEGAT etc.

The Deponent of the affidavit has stated that the issue involved in the show cause notices issued to the Petitioner was directly linked to the pendency of the Civil Appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court (Diary No. 24614/2016) in the case of Union of India Vs. Uttam Galva Steels Limited & Others, (3 Civil Appeal No. 7272 of 2005 dt. 20.09.2024), and hence, it was categorized in clause (ii) of the circular and transferred to Call Book.

A specific stand is