9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1207X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondents in the affidavit. We thus think it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents to consider the applications of the petitioner afresh on merit which were disposed of vide the order dated 24.12.2014 only for non-supply of certain documents. A detailed reason would thus be required to be given by the quasi judicial authority within a period of 4 (four) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - Impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee. - WP (C) No. 39 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 26-5-2015 - Uma Nath Singh, CJ And T. Nandakumar Singh, JJ. For Petitioner : Mr N Das Gupta, Adv For the Respondents : Mr R Deb Nath, CGC JUDGMENT ( UN Singh, CJ ) We ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o. 31/2008 CE dated 10.06.2008) laid down the procedure for determination of the actual value addition by Commissioner of Central Excise, Shillong, within a stipulated period of three months from the date of receipt of the application. In the instant case, the Original Application was filed on 29.09.2011. The Balance Sheets and other related certificates were submitted on 01.11.2011. The said documents were admittedly received in the office of respondent No. 1 on 14.11.2011. Therefore, as per aforesaid provisions of law, respondent No. 1 was under obligation to decide the claim on or before 14.02.2012. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner, submits that under 1996 Notification (No. 32/99-C.E) dated 08.07.1999, the petitioner company was enti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of demanding fresh documents. Learned counsel for the petitioner, also referred to para 9 of the petition to argue that the company has already supplied essential documents required for verification of the certificate and balance sheet by the Customs and Central Excise authority. The said para states as under: That there is no provision of law which requires that the petitioner should produce their private records in addition to the statutory documents specified in the notifications. It is also mandatory the petitioner should maintain private records of production, raw materials and sale etc. Moreover, statutory records name RG-1 showing daily production and clearance, opening and closing stock of the final product, RG-23 Registers an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter in his record; (iii) Every assessee shall on demand make available to the Range officer duly empowered by the Government of India/Commissioner of Central Excise (a) the records maintained or prepared by him in terms of sub-rule (2) of rule 22 of the said Rules; (b) the cost audit reports, if any, under section 233B of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956); and (c) the Income-tax audit report, if any, under section 44B of Income-tax, 1961 (43 of 1961), (d) for the scrutiny of the officer or audit party, as the case may be. The information available in the audited Balance Sheet submitted by the applicant is insufficient as most of the information available in the audited Balance Sheet is consolidated and as such detailed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner deserves to be dismissed. In the rejoinder affidavit filed on 22.05.2015, the petitioner, vide para 10 has given the reply as under: 10. With regard to the paragraphs 12, 13 14 of the Affidavit in opposition of the Respondents. i) The argument that verification could not be made by the Central Excise Range Officer due to non-availability of the private documents is frivolous and weak due to the fact that all required information such as sale value, value of raw materials, opening and closing stock etc were all along available with the Range Office as the same were mandatorily submitted by the petitioner to the Central Excise Range Office on a monthly basis without fail. Neither there is any statutory provision nor are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... legation and states that it was open to the Central Excise department to initiate proceedings for recovery of arrears. But this had nothing to do with the fixation of Special rate. Department is at liberty to adjust from the payment arising out of fixation of Special Rate, if there is any confirmed demand, pending against the petitioner. This was not done, made it amply clear that respondent No. 1 was not honest and sincere while performing the statutory duties regarding fixation of Special Rate of the humble petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents, Union of India, could not point out anything further except what is provided in the affidavit-in-opposition whereas the petitioner company has asserted that it had supplied all d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
