9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (12) TMI 904 - HC - Central ExciseFixation of special rate of value addition of Central Excise duty - direction to respondents to treat the applications filed by the petitioner in time and to consider the same on merit - HELD THAT - The Court finds that in the case of M/S JYOTHY LABS LTD. (ERSTWHILE JYOTHY LABORATORIES LTD.) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND 2 ORS., PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER CGST COMMISSIONERATE, ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF GST AND CENTRAL EXCISE 2021 (8) TMI 726 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT , this Court had categorically held that the requirement of requesting for fixation of a special rate in respect of value addition to the manufactured goods had arisen only after the final judgment of the Supreme Court of India on 22.04.2020. It is seen that by virtue of orders passed by the Supreme Court of India in IN RE COGNIZANCE FOR EXTENSION OF LIMITATION 2020 (5) TMI 418 - SC ORDER arising out of the said case, the period of limitation, whether condonable or not stood extended from 15.03.2020 till 02.10.2021 and it was further provided in para-II of the order dated 23.09.2021 in M.A. No. 665/2021 as follows II. In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 02.10.2021, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 03.10.2021. In the event actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 03.10.2021, is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply. Issue notice returnable on 10.01.2022. Extra copies of the writ petition be served on the learned CGC as well as on the learned Standing counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3 - List on 10.01.2022.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the impugned order rejecting the applications for fixing a special rate of value addition of Central Excise duty. 2. Applicability of the period of limitation for filing applications during the COVID-19 pandemic. 3. Maintainability of the writ petition despite the availability of an alternative remedy. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Impugned Order: The petitioner challenged the impugned order dated 30.08.2021, passed by the Principal Commissioner, GST, Dibrugarh, which rejected the applications for fixing a special rate of value addition of Central Excise duty. The petitioner's firm, set up under the Industrial Policy Resolution, 1997, and North East Industrial and Investment Promotion Policy, 2007, had been availing excise duty exemption. The exemption was initially 100% but was amended to 36% via notifications dated 27.03.2008 and 10.06.2008. The petitioner filed writ petitions challenging these amendments, and the High Court initially ruled in favor of the petitioner, granting 100% exemption. However, the Supreme Court later allowed the revenue's appeal, leading to the demand for recovery of the excess refund paid to the petitioner. 2. Applicability of the Period of Limitation: The petitioner argued that the applications for fixing special rates were filed late due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the subsequent lockdowns. The Supreme Court, in Suo Motu W.P.(C) No.3/2020 and M.A. No. 665/2021, extended the limitation period from 15.03.2020 to 02.10.2021. The petitioner contended that this extension applied to their case, as the necessity to request for fixation of a special rate arose only after the Supreme Court's final judgment on 22.04.2020. The Court noted that the question of limitation in this case did not require factual examination, supporting the petitioner's claim that the applications were timely due to the extended limitation period. 3. Maintainability of the Writ Petition: The respondents argued that the petitioner should have availed the alternative remedy of appeal. However, the Court cited the principles from Magadh Sugar and Energy Limited, stating that the existence of an alternative remedy does not bar the High Court from exercising its jurisdiction in certain contingencies, such as violation of natural justice or lack of jurisdiction. The Court found that the petitioner's case involved a pure question of law regarding the applicability of the extended limitation period, making the writ petition maintainable. Interim Relief: The Court granted interim relief by staying the operation of the impugned order and the recovery notices until the next hearing date. The petitioner was required to extend the validity of the surety and solvency bonds submitted earlier. Conclusion: The Court found that the petitioner had shown a prima facie case for hearing, as the requirement for requesting a special rate arose only after the Supreme Court's judgment, and the limitation period was extended due to the pandemic. The writ petition was deemed maintainable despite the alternative remedy, and interim protection was granted to the petitioner. The matter was listed for further hearing on 10.01.2022.
|
