9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (5) TMI 190 - HC - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - inputs - invoices not in the name of Petitioner but in the name of the General Manager - goods covered under the invoices were never received in the factory premises of the petitioner - duty paid on the compressors but not received in the factory of the Petitioner - time limitation for issuance of SCN. - Revenue contended that, the case of the petitioner was kept in call book, as per circular (R-1), the delay of 10 years cannot be taken as a ground to quash the show cause notice HELD THAT - Issue in the present case is squarely covered in favour of the petitioner keeping in view the decision rendered in GPI Textiles Ltd. s case 2018 (9) TMI 25 - PUNJAB HARYANA HIGH COURT . Since, no interim stay has been granted by Hon ble the Supreme Court, the present petition is allowed and the impugned show cause notice dated 24.02.2009 (P-1) is set aside.
Issues:
Challenge to show cause notice for wrongful Cenvat credit availed and duty not discharged, delay in hearing, applicability of Section 11A, reliance on past judgments, dispute over SSI exemption limit, circular on cases pending in call book, dismissal of Special Leave to Appeal, pending SLP before Supreme Court. Analysis: The petitioner challenged a show cause notice dated 24.02.2009, which alleged wrongful availment of Cenvat credit and non-discharge of duty liabilities. The petitioner was registered under the Central Excise Act and had availed credit on inputs. The notice highlighted discrepancies in availing credit and utilizing it for duty discharge, leading to contravention of rules. The petitioner responded to the notice, and multiple hearing dates were scheduled over the years, with the latest fixed for 16.03.2021. The petitioner contested the notice citing Section 11A, which outlines the procedure for issuing show cause notices and passing orders. The section underwent amendments over the years, with a focus on timely determination of duty liability in fraud cases. The petitioner's counsel referred to relevant judgments, including a Supreme Court case and a division bench judgment of the High Court. The petitioner argued that the Division Bench judgment had been followed in subsequent cases, supporting their stance. On the other hand, the respondent's counsel mentioned the transfer of the case to the call book due to a similar issue pending in the Supreme Court. The respondent highlighted the petitioner's non-entitlement to the Small Scale Industries (SSI) exemption due to exceeding the exemption limit, leading to duty non-payment. Reference was made to a circular clarifying the adjudication process for cases decided by higher courts. Despite a delay of 10 years, the respondent contended that the case remained valid for adjudication. The petitioner's counsel noted the dismissal of a Special Leave to Appeal by the Supreme Court in a related case, emphasizing the lack of interim stay in pending appeals. The respondent's counsel mentioned a pending Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court related to another case. The court found in favor of the petitioner, citing precedents and lack of interim stay in pending appeals. Relying on past judgments, especially the decision in GPI Textiles Ltd.'s case, the court allowed the petition and set aside the impugned show cause notice dated 24.02.2009.
|
