2020 (1) TMI 932 - HC - Central Excise

Refund of CENVAT credit - It is brought to the notice of this Court that Ext.P6 petition dated 16/08/2019 filed by the petitioner was filed by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent in the matter of the claim of the petitioner for grant of refund on the basis of the claim entitled for CENVAT credit - HELD THAT - Without getting into the merits of the controversy in any manner, it is ordered that R7 may treat a copy of Ext.P6 petition as annexed to this petition as if it s a petition duly filed before him and then after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, the authorized official or counsel if any will render a considered decision thereon, in accordance with the norms and procedure governing the field and in accordance with law without much delay preferably within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Consideration and orders on Ext.P6 representation by different respondents.
2. Release of balance CENVAT credit.
3. Cost of proceedings.
4. Compliance with court directions.

Consideration and orders on Ext.P6 representation:
The petitioner sought writs directing various respondents to consider and pass orders on Ext.P6 representation promptly. The court noted that the petition should have been filed before a different authority. However, without delving into the merits, the court directed the concerned authority (R7) to treat the petition as filed before him. R7 was instructed to decide on the matter after giving the petitioner a fair hearing, within six weeks from the date of the court order. The petitioner was allowed to forward a copy of the representation and the judgment to R7 for compliance.

Release of balance CENVAT credit:
Additionally, the petitioner requested writs for the release of a specific amount as balance CENVAT credit. The court directed the first and second respondents to release the mentioned credit promptly. The fourth and fifth respondents were also directed to release the same credit amount to the petitioner without delay. These directions were given to ensure the expeditious release of the CENVAT credit owed to the petitioner.

Cost of proceedings:
The petitioner sought the cost of the proceedings. The court did not provide specific details on this aspect in the judgment. However, it can be inferred that the petitioner's request for the cost of the proceedings was likely considered as part of the overall relief sought in the petition.

Compliance with court directions:
The judgment concluded by disposing of the writ petition with the provided observations and directions. It emphasized that the directions given must be complied with by the concerned respondents. The court's decision aimed to ensure that the Ext.P6 representation was properly considered, the CENVAT credit was released promptly, and all parties involved adhered to the court's directives.