9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (10) TMI 551 - HC - Central ExciseRefund - recovery of the dues of the year 1991 by an order made in the year 2008 - ordered to adjust the sum against the outstanding dues in the year1991 - Held that - the recovery of the dues of the year 1991 by an order made in the year 2008 is not belated - petition is dismissed
Issues involved:
Manufacturer's appeal against order of Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal - Adjustment of deposit against outstanding dues - Opportunity of hearing and representation - Recovery of dues from 1991 in 2008. Analysis: The petition was filed by a manufacturer under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order of the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal had partially allowed the manufacturer's appeal regarding a demand of Rs. 13,21,483 made by the Commissioner of Excise. The Tribunal upheld a demand of Rs. 4,46,378 and remanded the remaining claims to the Commissioner Appeals. The petitioner was required to deposit Rs. 3 lakhs pending the appeal, which was to be refunded due to the remand. However, the Assistant Commissioner ordered to adjust this amount against outstanding dues from a 1991 order. The Commissioner Appeals rejected the challenge to this order, leading to the petitioner approaching the Tribunal, which ultimately rejected the appeal, prompting the filing of the present petition. The petitioner's counsel raised two main contentions. Firstly, it was argued that the petitioner was not given an opportunity of hearing or representation before the adjustment of Rs. 3 lakhs against the 1991 dues. Secondly, it was contended that the recovery of dues from 1991 in 2008 was unduly delayed. However, both these contentions were dismissed by the Commissioner Appeals, the Tribunal, and the High Court. The court noted that the 1991 order had become final and the recovery through adjustment was in line with Section 11 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Consequently, the court found no grounds for interference and dismissed the petition summarily.
|
