9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 1732X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e respondents that request of petitioner No. 1 for transferring the case to the Additional Director General, Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence, Delhi Zonal Unit, New Delhi did not fall within the power of the adjudicating authority of the present case i.e. the Commissioner, Central Excise and Service Tax Commissionerate, Alwar, is wholly without any substance as it was always open for him to make a request to the competent authority seeking appropriate order of transfer of the case to the Adjudicating Authority at New Delhi. Petition allowed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ort to compile relevant legal and statutory provisions, circulars of the past and to rescind circulars which have lost relevance. Annexure-I to the circular provides list of the eighty nine circulars which stand rescinded. Three circulars listed in Annexure-II have not been rescinded as they contain comprehensive instructions on the subject they address. 2. The master circular is divided into four parts. Part I deals with Show Cause Notice related issues, Part II deals with issues related to Adjudication proceedings, Part III deals with closure of proceedings and recovery of duty and Part IV deals with miscellaneous issues. 3. The provisions of the Master Circular shall have overriding effect on the CBEC's Excise Manual of Supplementary instructions to the extent they are in conflict. 4. Difficulty, if any, in the implementation of this Circular may be brought to the notice of the Board. Hindi version will follow." 3. We are in the present case concerned with Clause 11.2 of the Master Circular contained in Part II, captioned as "Other important points", which reads as under : "11.2 Other important points : Cases involving taxability, classif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3-2016 (P-3), page 79 to 144 Para & Page no. of show cause notice, dated 23-10-2017 (P-4), page 145 to 177 1. Para 2, page 145, show cause notice dated 2-3-2016 (actual date 1-3-2016 - P- 3) refers 2. Panchnama dated 9-4-2013 drawn at premises of M/s. Star Delta Para 2.4.1, page 97 & 98, "... the factory premises consists of.... no movement of vehicles" Para 20, page 152 & 153 "... the factory premises consists of… no movement of vehicles" 3. Statement dated 9-4-2013 of Sh. Satender Sharma - Auth. Signatory of M/s. Star Delta Para 2.4.1.1, page 98, 99. At page 99 ".... that for these firms/companies……. in the custody of by Sh. Yogesh Singh...." Para 20.2, page 153, 154. At page 154. "… that for these firms/companies… in the custody of by Sh. Yogesh Singh...." 4. Statement dated 21-5-2013 of Sh. Yogesh Singh, Auth. Signatory of M/s. Star Delta Para 2.4.3.1, page 104, 105. At page 105 "…They started another company in the not surrendered its central excise registration..." page 106 Para 20.4, page 155, 156 "… . They started another company in the... not surrendered its central excise registration..." 5. Do Para 2.4.3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned Counsel for the Revenue however objected to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the petitioners have alternative efficacious remedy by way of appeal under Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 before the Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. However, responding to the argument raised by Learned Counsel for the petitioners, his submission is that C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 1000/7/2015-CX., dated 3-3-2015 and Circular No. 1053/2/2017-CX., dated 10-3-2017 are applicable only in respect of the cases booked by DGCEI as is evident from the subject of Circular No. 1000/7/2015-CX., dated 3-3-2015 which reads as 'Instructions regarding adjudication of Central Excise and Service Tax Cases booked by DGCEI-reg.' Further submission of Learned Counsel for the Revenue is that present case was not booked by DGCEI, which could be considered for transferring to another adjudicating authority. Moreover, such a request was made by petitioner No. 1 after more than two months of issuance of impugned show cause notice. Furthermore, the request of the petitioners for transferring the case to the Additional Director General, Directorate General of Cen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... NV/C.E./G/49/2013/1550, dated 1-3-2016 containing denial and recovery of Cenvat credit of ₹ 22,45,79,860/- along with interest, besides invocation of penal provisions, had the highest amount of duty as compared to denial and recovery of Cenvat credit of ₹ 4,49,63,006/- along with interest besides invocation of penal provisions contained in another show cause notice C No. V(H)Adj/C.E.-76 & 74/155/Alw/2017/7924, dated 23-10-2017, which culminated in the impugned Order-in-Original. 10. Argument of the respondents that request of petitioner No. 1 for transferring the case to the Additional Director General, Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence, Delhi Zonal Unit, New Delhi did not fall within the power of the adjudicating authority of the present case i.e. the Commissioner, Central Excise and Service Tax Commissionerate, Alwar, is wholly without any substance as it was always open for him to make a request to the competent authority seeking appropriate order of transfer of the case to the Adjudicating Authority at New Delhi. 11. In view of above discussion, present writ petition deserves to succeed and is accordingly allowed. Impugned Order-in-Origi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
