2017 (10) TMI 19 - HC - Central Excise

Permission to withdraw the petition - non leviability of Excise Duty on Press-Mud which emerges as a waste or as a by-product during the course of manufacture of Sugar - Held that - the petitioner assessee Company filed its objections in pursuance of the impugned Notice before the concerned Authority - an adjudication order in pursuance of the said Show Cause Notice has already been passed and an Appeal against that order is pending before the Appellate Authority, the present petition is even otherwise also infructuous and therefore the same is accordingly now permitted to be withdrawn - application of petitioner to withdraw petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Petition seeking withdrawal
2. Show Cause Notice regarding Excise Duty on 'Press-Mud'
3. Amendment of Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002
4. Adjudication order and appeal

Analysis:
1. The petitioner filed a memo seeking withdrawal of the petition. The Court, in a previous instance, did not grant permission for withdrawal and requested a response from the Respondent Department regarding the Show Cause Notice issued despite the settled issue of non-leviability of Excise Duty on 'Press-Mud,' a by-product of sugar manufacturing.

2. The Respondent's counsel highlighted the amendment of Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002, through the insertion of Explanation 1, which expanded the definition of exempted goods to include non-excisable goods cleared for consideration from the factory. The issuance of the Show Cause Notice was justified based on this amendment, as the petitioner was deemed ineligible to avail CENVAT Credit under the revised rules.

3. After hearing both counsels, the Court noted that the petitioner had already submitted objections in response to the Show Cause Notice, and an adjudication order had been issued. Furthermore, an appeal against this order was pending before the Appellate Authority. Consequently, the Court deemed the present petition as infructuous and permitted its withdrawal, while allowing the petitioner to pursue alternative remedies available under the relevant Act.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the petitioner's request for withdrawal, the implications of the Show Cause Notice in light of the amended Rule 6, and the status of the adjudication order and pending appeal. The Court's decision to permit withdrawal while preserving the petitioner's right to seek alternative remedies reflects a balanced approach to the legal proceedings in this matter.