9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 184X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioners cannot be made to suffer. To ascertain the correct position in the matter, respondent no.2 could have granted the petitioner and the Jurisdictional Revenue Authority further hearing. It would be appropriate to remand the proceedings back to respondent no.2 for fresh consideration by setting aside the impugned order - Appeal allowed by way of remand. - WRIT PETITION NO.245 OF 2018 - - - Dated:- 15-6-2018 - S. C. Dharmadhikari And Prakash D. Naik, JJ. Mr.Prakash Shah a/w. M/s. Pooja Reddy i/b. Dubey Vinit Prabhat, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr.Pradeep S. Jetly a/w. Mr.Jitendra B. Mishra, Advocate for the Respondents JUDGMENT ( Per Prakash D. Naik, J. ) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2 By consent of the parties, the petition was heard for final disposal. 3 The petitioner has invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and questioned the legality of the order dated 21st August, 2017, passed by the Settlement Commission rejecting the application filed by the petitioner as not maintainable under Section 32E (1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 4 The petitioner is the proprietary concern engaged ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alled upon to submit documents to the Jurisdictional Revenue Authorities for verification of availability of CENVAT Credit. The petitioner submitted all the required documents vide letter dated 19th May, 2017. No response was received from the office of the Jurisdictional Revenue Authorities till the reminder dated 9th June, 2017, was received requesting for certain documents. Thereafter, the petitioner received another letter dated 14th June, 2017, enclosing the copy of the earlier letter. That was followed by letter dated 20th June, 2017, wherein the Interim Report dated 19th June, 2017, forwarded to respondent no.2 was enclosed by the Commissioner of Service Tax-VII, Mumbai. In the said Report, certain discrepancies were pointed out and also stated that the eligibility of CENVAT Credit could not be verified in the absence of CENVAT register. The petitioner forwarded reply dated 30th June, 2017, to respondent no.2 in response to the Interim Report of Jurisdictional Revenue Authority and explained all the discrepancies mentioned in the Report, and, it was also pointed out that all the documents were provided except the CENVAT Register. According to petitioner, the Interim Report w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom serious infirmities. The petitioner had forwarded reply dated 30th June, 2017, which speaks otherwise. The impugned order erroneously states that the petitioner has failed to comply with the order and had not provided with documents to the Jurisdictional Revenue Authority despite repeated reminders. Mr.Shah, relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Poona Tools Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India 2015(323) E.L.T. 572 (Bom.). 10 Mr.Jetly, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the submissions of the petitioner are devoid of merits. Respondent no.2 has taken into consideration all material aspects and rejected the Settlement Application. He submitted that sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner to produce requisite documents, but, the petitioner have not responded. The grievance of the petitioner is afterthought. He submitted that the assessee was requested to file the CENVAT Register and relevant documents vide letter dated 26th May, 2017, and reminder was issued to them vide letter dated 9th June, 2017. However, the assessee did not respond to the said letters. The Service Tax liability of ₹ 1,88,23,722/- said to be paid through CENVAT Credi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the sides. They were also served with notice dated 27th March, 2017, which was replied by the petitioner stating that ST-3 Returns for the year 2008-09 were not available as they were filed by their Chartered Accountant, who is no more. The petitioner received letter dated 13th April, 2017, stating that the case under reference is allowed to be proceeded with vide order dated 7th April, 2017 of the Bench. Apparently, respondent no.2 has relied upon the report of the Jurisdictional Revenue Authority. The petitioner had dealt with the Interim Report vide reply dated 30th June, 2017, contending that the documents were provided except CENVAT Credit Register, which was maintained by the Chartered Accountant, who was travelling abroad at the relevant time. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Interim Report was sent to respondent no.2 without providing the petitioner an opportunity to submit any documents. Apart from that, the discrepancies in the Report were explained and the amount not paid due to an inadvertent error and the challan showing the same were annexed to the reply. It appears that the reply dated 30th June, 2017, forwarded by the petitioner was not taken into consid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rence to petitioner's letter dated 30th June, 2017, but, no Report is filed by the Revenue and, thereby, the Revenue has failed to file their Final Report within the stipulated time. The Bench, has thus, proceeded on the basis of available record. Inspite of directions issued to the petitioner to submit all relevant documents of service tax on the basis of which CENVAT Credit is claimed and relevant record regarding availment and debit of said CENVAT Credit to the Jurisdictional Revenue Authority for verification within three days, the petitioner failed to submit records and it was obligatory on their part to submit original record which they failed to do so. The petitioner also did not produce original invoices before the Revenue Authority. On these grounds, the application was rejected. It is apparent that the application was basically rejected on the ground of non-production of documents. The contention of the petitioner that all the documents was on record and in the event there was any specific requisition from the respondent no.2 to file certain documents, he was ready to produce the same. For all these reasons stated above, it appears that respondent no.2 has hurriedly r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
