Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2019 (6) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (6) TMI 1068 - HC - Central ExciseRecovery of penalty against the company/ partnership firm - Cenvat Credit - Application seeking to vacate the interim relief - HELD THAT - The present application has been preferred on absolute misreading of the decision of the Supreme Court in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. and another vs. Central Bureau of Investigation 2018 (4) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT , more particularly, the observations made in paras 34 and 35 referred to above. The observations of the Supreme Court with regard to continuation of any interim order beyond the period of six months in any civil or criminal proceedings arising from a trial fell altogether in a different context. The observations made in the decision of the Supreme Court in the context of Civil and Criminal litigation cannot be made applicable in a Tax Appeal. An identical issue fell for the consideration of a Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay in the case of ORACLE FINANCIAL SERVICES SOFTWARE LTD, MUMBAI VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-13 (1) (1) ORS. 2019 (3) TMI 1320 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT , where it was held that power of the Assessing Officer to review the situation every six months, would not authorize him to lift the stay previously granted after full consideration and insist on full payment of tax without the assessee being responsible for delay in disposal of the appeal or any other such similar material change in circumstances. There is no good reason to vacate the interim order passed by this court. If the Revenue is so much concerned about the interim relief which is operating in favour of the assessee, than it should take necessary steps to see that the Tax Appeal is taken up for final hearing - application dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Application for vacating stay in pending Tax Appeal under Section 35(A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. Consideration of substantial questions of law in the Tax Appeal. 3. Disposal of Civil Application for interim relief. 4. Application to vacate interim relief based on Supreme Court's decision. 5. Misconception in seeking to vacate interim relief. 6. Applicability of Supreme Court's observations in Tax Appeal context. 7. Decision on vacating interim relief application. 8. Fixing Tax Appeal for final hearing. Analysis: 1. The judgment involves an application by the Revenue in a pending Tax Appeal under Section 35(A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The application sought to vacate the stay granted by the court in the main matter, Tax Appeal No.1332 of 2014, or alternatively fix an early date for hearing. The court noted the prayers made by the Revenue and considered the history of the Tax Appeal initiated by the opponent-assessee. 2. The Tax Appeal No. 1332/2014 raised substantial questions of law related to the application of the extended period of limitation, reasonable care under the Cenvat Credit Rules, and the validity of denying cenvat credit to the appellant company. The court acknowledged the questions for consideration and the connected appeals to be heard together. 3. Subsequently, the assessee filed a Civil Application seeking interim relief, which was disposed of by the court. The order clarified the stay against recovery of penalty but required deposit of the remaining duty and interest within a specified time frame. The disposal of the Civil Application set the context for the subsequent developments in the case. 4. The Revenue argued for vacating the interim relief based on a Supreme Court decision, emphasizing the need to remedy delays caused by stays in legal proceedings. The court examined the arguments presented and the observations made by the Supreme Court regarding the duration of stays in civil and criminal cases. 5. The court found the application to vacate the interim relief to be misconceived, highlighting a misinterpretation of the Supreme Court's decision. It referenced a similar case in the Bombay High Court to support its position that the observations on stays did not directly apply to the Tax Appeal context. 6. In light of the above analysis, the court rejected the application to vacate the interim relief, emphasizing the need for the Revenue to expedite the final hearing of the Tax Appeal if concerned about the ongoing relief in favor of the assessee. The decision was based on the specific context of the Tax Appeal and the misapplication of the Supreme Court's observations. 7. The judgment concluded by rejecting the application to vacate the interim relief and instead fixing the Tax Appeal No.1332/2014 for final hearing on a specified date. The court's decision was grounded in the understanding that the concerns raised by the Revenue could be addressed through expediting the hearing process rather than vacating the relief granted. This comprehensive analysis outlines the key issues addressed in the judgment and provides a detailed breakdown of the court's reasoning and decision-making process in each aspect of the case.
|