2015 (10) TMI 716 - HC - Central Excise

Review petition - CENVAT Credit - Not payment of duty and cess with stipulated time of 30days - ontravention of Rule 8(3A) - Recover u/s 11 - Review on the ground that petitioner did not bring to the notice of this Court about the order passed by the Hon ble Division Bench in the case of Unirol Airtex vs. Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore reported in 2013 (8) TMI 614 - MADRAS HIGH COURT , by which, the Hon ble Division Bench reversed the decision - Judgment referred to above could not be placed for consideration of this Court on account of the fact that the same was not reported immediately - held that - said decision having been rendered by the Division Bench much prior to the decision in the present writ petition, the applicant/petitioner has made out a case for reviewing the order. - Review allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Review of direction issued in a writ petition regarding payment of duty and Cess under Central Excise Rules, 2002.

Analysis:
1. The review application was filed to challenge the direction issued by the court in a previous writ petition where the petitioner sought to quash an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise. The department alleged non-payment of duty and Cess within the specified time period, citing violation of Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Additionally, the petitioner was accused of utilizing Cenvat Credit for payment of excise duty, which was deemed contrary to Rule 8(3A) of the Rules.

2. The court considered the petitioner's arguments in light of a previous decision in the case of Unirol Airtex vs. Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore and dismissed the writ petition. However, the petitioner later brought to the court's attention a Division Bench judgment that had reversed the earlier decision, which the petitioner claimed was inadvertently not presented during the initial proceedings.

3. Given the significance of the Division Bench judgment predating the decision in the present writ petition, the court allowed the review application, setting aside the previous order and restoring the writ petition to be heard before an appropriate Bench in June 2015. An interim order was issued to prevent the department from taking any coercive action against the petitioner until further orders.

4. The court emphasized that the petitioner had a valid case for review based on the new information provided, leading to the allowance of the review application and the subsequent setting aside of the previous order. The matter was scheduled for further proceedings before an appropriate Bench, with instructions for the respondents to file a counter in response to the petition.