Judgment:
1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant against the decision of the Collector of Central Excise, Baroda, made in Order-in-Original No.38/MP/93, dated 16-12-1993 levying a duty of Rs. 32,559/- and also a levy fine in lieu of confiscation Rs. 30,000/-.
2. The case of the department was that the show cause notice was issued on 15-9-1976 alleging that when the officers visited in April, 1976 they found 745 wooden cases containing manufactured glass in the store room which were unaccounted in the RG 1 Register. It was also charged that the RG 1 Register was written only upto 1-4-1976. The factory manager in his statement admitted the violation. After looking into the reply as well as the various case laws submitted by the appellant including the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Universal Generics Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India -1993 (68) E.L.T. 27. The Collector levied fine and imposed duty.
3. The appellant gave written submissions. His main contention is that show cause notice issued in September, 1976 and adjudication was made in December, 1993, i.e. more than a decade ago. He also stated that when the goods are lying in the factory offence of removal cannot be charged and he cites two decisions of the Tribunal made in 1997 (93) E.L.T. 443 and 509. As against this, learned DR Ms. Reshma Lakhani argues that these decisions will not be applicable to the facts of the case here. She states the violation reported in this case is regarding non-accountal. As far as the Bombay High Court judgment is concerned, she states that in the peculiar circumstances of the case, viz. import of the material, the Court held in that way. I have considered the rival submissions.
4. The fact remains that the show cause notice was made in 1976 and adjudication proceedings have been initiated 17 years after such show cause notice. In this case not only the case of non-accountal but also the case of clandestine removal. A clandestine removal involves collection of evidence and placing it before the adjudicating authority. Law does not provide the time limit with which adjudication proceedings should be completed. Yet it is expected that adjudicating authorities have to complete such process within a reasonable time per se 17 years. To me it appears is a very long time. I am not saying that I am following the Bombay High Court judgment. The facts in this case are different from the facts in Bombay High Court judgment. However, natural justice demands that the delinquent assessee should not be expected to rely evidence long after. This case is not such a big case as to warrant completion of the adjudication proceedings after 17 years. It does not require collection of evidence from various sources.
Hence I am of the view that in the peculiar circumstances of the case, charge cannot be kept alive for 17 years.
5. Hence I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal in the peculiar circumstances of the case.