2016 (2) TMI 485 - HC - Central Excise

Recovery of duty - Entitlement to exemption notification - whether once the applicant had paid the amount by way of utilizing Cenvat credit it was not permissible for the applicant to suo motu reverse the Cenvat credit? - Held that - As the applicant has already deposited a sum of 6.5 crore pending the appeal before the Tribunal under the circumstances having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case the respondent be restrained from enforcing coercive recovery of duty against the applicant pursuant to the impugned order. Having regard to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant the court is of the view that a prima facie case has been made out for grant of the relief prayed for in the application

Summary

Issues:
- Denial of exemption under relevant notifications
- Recovery of amount paid utilizing Cenvat credit
- Coercive recovery of duty

Denial of Exemption under Relevant Notifications:
The case involved the applicant being denied exemption under relevant notifications amounting to Rs. 26,18,51,089. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the applicant, stating they were entitled to the benefit of the exemption notifications. The respondents sought to recover the amount from the applicant on the grounds that once the applicant used Cenvat credit to pay, it was not permissible for them to reverse the credit on their own. The applicant had already deposited Rs. 6.5 crore pending the appeal before the Tribunal. The applicant requested the court to restrain the respondents from coercively recovering the duty pursuant to the impugned order. The court, after hearing the submissions, found that a prima facie case was made out for granting the relief requested.

Recovery of Amount Paid Utilizing Cenvat Credit:
The central issue in this aspect was whether the applicant could reverse the Cenvat credit utilized for payment. The respondents argued that once the applicant had paid using the credit, they could not reverse it suo motu. However, the applicant contended that they should be allowed to reverse the credit. The Tribunal's decision in favor of the applicant supported their claim to benefit from the exemption notifications. The court considered the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, noting that the applicant had already deposited a substantial amount pending the appeal. The court granted ad-interim relief in favor of the applicant, indicating a likelihood of success in the case.

Coercive Recovery of Duty:
The final issue revolved around the coercive recovery of duty against the applicant. The applicant sought relief from the court to prevent the enforcement of coercive recovery by the respondents following the impugned order. The court, after considering the submissions made by the applicant's counsel, found that a prima facie case existed for granting the relief requested. Consequently, the court issued a Rule returnable on 1st March, 2016, and granted ad-interim relief in accordance with the applicant's application.