9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (8) TMI 594X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to be reexamined. - Special Civil Application No. 4838 of 2011 - - - Dated:- 18-8-2011 - Akil Kureshi, Sonia Gokani, JJ. Devan Parikh for the Appellant Y.N. Ravani for the Respondent JUDGEMENT Akil Kureshi: Heard learned advocates for the parties for final disposal of the petition. Petitioners have challenged an order dated 3rd January 2011 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad in following factual background. The petitioners are manufacturers. The petitioners availed Cenvat credit on the input used in the final product. Certain disputes arose by virtue of which the question of the petitioners having availed of such Cenvat credit on inputs which are not dutiable was the center of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding to the petitioner. The respondents, however, desired to verify the claim of the petitioner, for which the Commissioner was of the opinion that certain documents were not supplied. After correspondence, by communication dated 30th December 2010, it was conveyed that the petitioner should furnish relevant documents or information in connection with application dated 4.11.2010. In response to this communication, the petitioners replied vide letter dated 3.1.2011 along with which several documents and accounts were presented before the Authority. The Commissioner, however, by the impugned order dated 3.1.2011 rejected the application of the petitioner mainly on two grounds. Firstly, he was of the opinion that the exact figures of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ght to have demanded the difference. Learned counsel Shri Ravani for the Department, however, submitted that the petitioners did not supply necessary documents though demanded within the time envisaged under the statute. Ultimately, the Commissioner had no choice but to reject the application. From the available material on record, we find that the Commissioner has not rejected the claim or the case of the petitioners on merits finding it not covered within the statutory amendments made with retrospective effect. Primary grounds for rejection as already noticed were that bifurcation of duty attributable to exempted and unexempted goods was not possible and that therefore the same ought to have been taken in the ratio between the two ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee of urgency and certain time limits for different stages to be completed. Ordinarily, therefore, such proceedings should not be delayed or protracted indefinitely. However, when serious question of supplying documents and details have arisen and when the petitioners have made a prima facie case of having paid the the duty with interest as per their calculation and also of having bifurcated the Cenvat credit attributable to exempt and non-exempt goods as suggested by the Commissioner in the impugned order, we are of the opinion that the application is required to be reexamined. For the above purpose, the impugned order is quashed. The petitioners' application dated 4.11.2010 is revived. The Commissioner shall communicate to the petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
