2016 (4) TMI 836 - HC - Central Excise

Seeking quashing of order-in-original - Demand of duty with interest under Rule 6(3) of the CCR, 2004 - alleged use of common input services in the manufacture of exempted goods - export of various engineering equipment and machinery and claiming rebate on payment of appropriate duty - Held that - the course adopted by the Assistant Commissioner is legally impermissible. By relying on the judgment of Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of M/s. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors 2016 (4) TMI 781 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT , the impugned order is quashed and set aside. The refund claim shall now be granted and the respondent shall not insist on compliance with clause (b) of the operative order. That direction and to this extent stands quashed and set aside. - Petition disposed of

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order-in-original dated 29th January, 2016 regarding rebate claims.

Analysis:
The petitioner, engaged in manufacturing heavy engineering equipment, was proceeded against for alleged use of common input services in the manufacture of exempted goods. An order-in-original dated 31st January, 2012, demanded a significant sum. The petitioner filed rebate claims for goods exported, seeking benefits and concessions. The Assistant Commissioner, after a personal hearing, passed an order on 29th January, 2016, adjusting the rebate amount against the demand confirmed but stayed by the Tribunal. This action was challenged in the Writ Petition as being impermissible.

The petitioner's counsel argued that a similar issue was decided in favor of the petitioner in a previous judgment. Despite repeated inquiries, the respondents failed to provide any distinguishing features to justify their actions. Considering the previous judgment in the petitioner's favor, the High Court quashed and set aside the impugned order, directing the refund claim to be granted without insisting on certain conditions mentioned in the order.

The Court expressed disappointment in the officers' reluctance to comply with judicial orders, emphasizing the importance of following and implementing court judgments promptly. The Court warned of penalties, including forfeiture of salaries, for officials failing to withdraw orders despite binding Division Bench judgments. The order concluded by highlighting the need for officers to act independently and promptly in implementing judicial decisions to foster a conducive environment for businesses in India.

In conclusion, the High Court disposed of the Writ Petition, setting aside the impugned order and directing the refund claim to be processed without certain conditions. The judgment underscored the importance of officers adhering to court orders promptly and independently to promote a favorable business environment.