9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (10) TMI 498 - HC - Central ExciseApplication for early hearing Refund of unutilized CENVAT credit - Whether the appellant was entitled to refund of unutilized Cenvat Credit in terms of Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 Held that - Following COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., NASIK Versus JAIN VANGUARD POLYBUTLENE LTD. 2010 (6) TMI 171 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT - the CESTAT should have allowed the early hearing application and heard the petitioner on merits, in view of the fact that during the hearing of the application for early hearing of appeal before the CESTAT - the issue in appeal before CESTAT prima facie appears to be covered and should be decided by the CESTAT while hearing the appeal order set aside matter remanded back to the CESTAT Decided in favour of Assessee.
Issues:
Challenge to rejection of application for early hearing of appeal by CESTAT regarding refund of unutilized Cenvat Credit amount. Analysis: The petition filed under article 226 of the Constitution challenged the order of CESTAT rejecting the application for early hearing of the appeal. The main issue before CESTAT was whether the appellant was entitled to a refund of unutilized Cenvat Credit amount. The petitioner argued that the issue was covered in their favor by the decision of the High Court in a previous case and also cited decisions from other High Courts supporting their position. The impugned order rejected the early hearing application solely based on the amount in dispute being less than Rs.1 crore. The High Court found that the issue in the appeal before CESTAT was apparently covered by a previous decision of the same court and that CESTAT should have allowed the early hearing application. It was noted that during the hearing, the respondents did not contest that the issue was covered by the previous decision. The High Court also observed that the respondents did not dispute this fact before them. Consequently, the High Court determined that the issue in the appeal prima facie appeared to be covered and should be decided by CESTAT during the appeal hearing. Therefore, the High Court set aside the impugned order and directed CESTAT to schedule the matter for final hearing, preferably before December 31, 2013. In conclusion, the High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing CESTAT to list the matter for final hearing, emphasizing that the issue in the appeal seemed to be covered by a previous decision, and thus should be decided on its merits during the appeal proceedings.
|
