9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (10) TMI 159 - HC - Central ExciseMaintainability of petition - requirement of mandatory pre-deposit - the specific case of the petitioner was that in its appeal and during hearing they had submitted that an amount of ₹ 12,50,000/- has already been deposited and the demand notice dated 14th August 2019 contained an amount of ₹ 7,86,135/- which has been deposited before issuance of the said demand and required to be appropriated - HELD THAT - Once a demand raised by the authority amounting to ₹ 22,99,635/- has attained finality up to the stage of Tribunal, there is no scope of considering the grievance of the petitioner regarding adjustment of any amount against this demand which might have been deposited by the petitioner at any stage prior to the demand raised by the petitioner. It is also found from the record that the petitioner himself had availed of the scheme declaring that an amount of ₹ 22,99,635/- was due against the petitioner and thereafter it is not open to the petitioner to raise any further grievance regarding the outstanding dues which remained against the petitioner. In exercise of the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, there is no scope for entering into the calculation which has been arrived at by the respondent department and on the face of it, it is not in dispute that the demand raised by the authority against the petitioner having attained finality, petitioner should go strictly as per scheme. Petition dismissed.
Issues:
1. Recovery of CENVAT credit and duty amount from a petitioner company and its directors. 2. Imposition of penalties under various rules on the petitioner and its directors. 3. Dismissal of appeals by the appellate authority and the Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. 4. Application under the Sabka Vishwas Scheme, 2019 for relief of tax dues. 5. Dispute regarding the determination of tax dues and subsequent communication/order. Issue 1 - Recovery of CENVAT credit and duty amount: The petitioner company, engaged in manufacturing non-alloy steel ingots, received a show-cause notice for recovery of CENVAT credit and duty amounts totaling ?22,27,500. The order disallowed the credit and imposed recovery under relevant rules. The appeal against this order was dismissed by the appellate authority and the Tribunal, confirming the penalty and recovery. Issue 2 - Imposition of penalties: Penalties were imposed on the petitioner and its directors under different rules for availing CENVAT credit based on fake invoices. The Tribunal upheld the penalties, emphasizing the involvement of directors in fraudulent activities. However, the quantum of penalties was reduced for three directors due to excessive amounts compared to the credit. The penalties on the directors were confirmed by the Tribunal. Issue 3 - Dismissal of appeals by the appellate authority and Tribunal: The appeals against penalties and recovery were dismissed due to non-compliance with statutory pre-deposit requirements. The Tribunal upheld the penalties and dismissed the appeals, citing non-compliance with legal provisions and involvement in fraudulent activities. Issue 4 - Application under Sabka Vishwas Scheme: The petitioner availed the Sabka Vishwas Scheme, 2019, declaring the total imposed amount and seeking relief for tax dues. The dispute arose regarding the determination of tax dues under the scheme, leading to a request for setting aside the determined amount and quashing related communications/orders. Issue 5 - Dispute regarding tax dues determination: The petitioner contested the determination of tax dues, arguing for adjustment of amounts already deposited against the demand. The court dismissed the petitioner's plea, stating that the demand had attained finality up to the Tribunal stage, and the petitioner must strictly adhere to the scheme's provisions without scope for further adjustments. In conclusion, the court upheld the tax dues determination, emphasizing the finality of the demand and the petitioner's compliance with the Sabka Vishwas Scheme, dismissing the petitioner's plea for adjustment and interference in the demand already settled.
|
