9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 403X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Furthermore, the effect of the earlier proceedings which were initiated pursuant to the audit paras and reply given by the petitioner, the reversal of appropriate input tax done by them and the claim for revision effected by them and the impact of those proceedings on the impugned Show-Cause Notice is also a factual issue. That apart, the action initiated by the petitioner based on audit paras has not attained finality pursuant to the petitioner's claim for refund. A Show-Cause Notice has been issued to the petitioner on 23.09.2014, by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, A B Division, Chennai I Commissionerate. Therefore, such issue cannot be taken to have attained finality and more particularly, when the petitioner has given a r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioner under Rule 14 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11 A(4) of Central Excise Act, 1944; why the penalty should not be imposed under Rule 15 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004; why the interest at the appropriate rate should not be recovered under Rule 14 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AA of Central Excise Act, 1944 and why an amount of ₹ 6,21,222/- for the year 2011-12 debited by the petitioner and an amount of ₹ 5,04,316/- for the year 2012-13 debited by the petitioner should not be appropriated against the amount demanded as CENVAT credit apart from levying interest and cess. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the impugned Show-Cause notice is not val ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y referring to Section 11 A(7) of Central Excise Act, it is submitted that the impugned proceedings initiated after a period of one year is wholly without jurisdiction. That apart, it is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision of ORISSA BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION CORPN. LTD., Vs. C.C.E., BHUBANESWAR reported in 2011 (264) E.L.T.14 (S.C), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that invoking extended period of limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, is not justified. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties elaborately, this Court is of the view that the petitioner cannot maintain this Writ Petition to quash the impugned order, which is only a Show-Cause Notice. 6. The issue as to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... position of law, in view of the fact of the said case, it was held that the Department was not justified in invoking the extended period of limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Therefore, the decision was rendered on the facts of the said case and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also observed that they are not laying any proposition of law. In circumstances, the petitioner has to necessarily subject himself to the proceedings initiated by the first respondent and submit their reply to the Show-Cause notice. 9. In any event the petitioner submits his reply raising all objections, both, factual and legal, the first respondent shall consider the issue as to whether the impugned proceedings is barred by l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
