2017 (9) TMI 782 - HC - Central Excise

Maintainability of petition - alternative remedy of appeal - CENVAT credit - Held that - when there is no challenge to the impugned proceedings on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction and the respondent having afforded an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and whether it is to the satisfaction of the petitioner or not being a factual issue and in the absence of plea of malafide, the petitioner has to necessarily avail the alternative remedy provided - Further more, the nature of transaction and the documents which were relied on for the purpose of availment of CENVAT Credit are factual matters. This again has to be agitated before an authority, which is the fact finding authority, which can re-appreciate all the documents and records and can take a decision in the matter. Thus, there are no justifiable grounds to entertain the Writ Petition as against the impugned order - petition dismissed being not maintainable.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to disallowed CENVAT credit in Order-in-Original, Maintainability of Writ Petition despite alternative remedy available, Consideration of factual matrix and legal contentions in rejecting credit, Jurisdiction of the respondent, Violation of principles of natural justice, Allegation of mala fides, Necessity to exhaust alternative remedy before approaching the Court.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a registered dealer, challenged an order disallowing CENVAT credit in Order-in-Original No.3 of 2017. The respondent disallowed a sum of ?1,25,657 as ineligible credit, demanding recovery, interest, and imposing a penalty. The Court raised the issue of maintainability due to the availability of an alternative appeal remedy. The petitioner argued that the rejection of credit was unsustainable as there was no specific provision limiting credit to purchases from registered dealers. The respondent allegedly failed to consider contentions in the reply to the show cause notice and the sufficiency of documents like invoices from the manufacturer's agent to claim credit.

The Court emphasized the need to satisfy exceptions for maintaining a Writ Petition despite an alternate remedy, citing Supreme Court precedents against interference in Revenue matters without exhausting statutory remedies. The petitioner did not dispute the respondent's jurisdiction or the opportunity for a personal hearing. Lack of malafides and factual nature of issues regarding credit transactions and documents supported the need to exhaust the alternative remedy. The Court concluded that without justifiable grounds like lack of jurisdiction or malafides, the petitioner must avail the statutory appeal remedy. The Writ Petition was dismissed as not maintainable, allowing the petitioner to appeal to the Appellate Authority if desired, with no costs incurred.