2021 (9) TMI 825 - HC - Central Excise

Refund of Excise duty in cash - fixing special rate of valued addition in terms of notification dated 14.11.2002 - exemption of goods cleared from units located in specified areas from the duty equivalent to the amounts of duty paid by the manufacturer - HELD THAT - This petition is disposed off with the direction to the respondent No.3, Assistant Commissioner Central Goods and Services Tax Division, Jammu to consider the applications of the petitioner for fixation of a special rate in terms of the notifications referred in accordance with law most expeditiously without insisting for the time of filing of the applications in the light of the judgment of the Guahati High Court if possible within a period of one month from the date a copy of this order is produced before him. In the meantime, no final order shall be passed in response to the show-cause notices dated 02.05.2013, 01.10.2013, 28.042015, 03.03.2020 and 05.06.2020 for a period of one month or till the aforesaid applications are decided as directed. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Industrial Policy for exemption of duty
2. Delay in adjudicating applications for special rate of valued addition
3. Grounds for rejecting applications based on limitation

Analysis:
The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh deliberated on the interpretation of the Industrial Policy aimed at boosting industrial development and investor confidence. The State and Central Government had issued notifications granting exemptions and refunds of excise duty, subject to specified conditions and maximum limits. The petitioner sought directions to adjudicate its applications for fixing a special rate of valued addition under the amended notifications, which were pending since July 2020.

The respondents assured the court of considering and deciding the applications within a reasonable timeframe. The petitioner argued that applications were being routinely rejected on the grounds of limitation, citing a judgment from the Gauhati High Court that questioned such rejections based on the timing of submission. The High Court, considering the circumstances, directed the Assistant Commissioner to expedite the consideration of the petitioner's applications without insisting on the filing time, aligning with the Guahati High Court's judgment, within a month of receiving the order.

Furthermore, the High Court ordered a stay on passing final orders in response to show-cause notices until the applications were decided as directed. The writ petition was ultimately disposed of, emphasizing the need for prompt and fair adjudication of applications under the Industrial Policy, highlighting the importance of adhering to legal principles and precedents in such matters.