9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 789X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for passing an appropriate order. We fail to understand what was the good ground for the department to issue three show cause notices. The respondents are directed to decide the claim of the writ applicant for the refund of the CVD / Excise duty in the Form R in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the writ of this order. If the department wants any documents for the purpose of looking into the claim, then the writ applicant shall furnish all such necessary and relevant documents at the earliest - application disposed off. - R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9152 of 2020 - - - Dated:- 2-9-2020 - HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIKRAM NATH and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA Appearan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 05 and show cause notice dated 26.9.2005 as referred to in para 14 of this petition and quashing and setting aside the same. (d) Writ of mandamus directing the respondents to refund the money along with interest to the petitioners. (e) for ad-interim relief in terms of prayer (b) above (f) for costs of the petition. (g) Such other and further order or orders as may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 2. It appears from the materials on record that the writ applicant herein filed an application addressed to the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise Division, Vapi 2 dated 29th April 2004 for the refund of CVD / Excise duty in Form R dated 21st January 2004. 3. The applic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Umbergaon, having his office at 1 Floor. Pooja Park, Opp Bank of Baroda, Sarigam Road. Bhilad, Gujarat. as to why: (i) The refund claim of ₹ 13,84,843/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs Eighty Four Thousand Eight Hundred Forty Three) should not be rejected under Section 11 B of Central Excise Act, 1944. 6. In one of the impugned show cause notices, the following has been stated in paras 6, 7, 8 and 9 respectively: 6. Thus, as per the Section 118 of the CEA, 1944, any refund claim filed by any claimant is to be disposed within 90 days of receipt of the genuine claim i.e. if all the papers of the claim are factually correct and no discrepancies are noticed. In the impugned case, the claimant had filed the refund claim in the yea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the division, the claimant was asked to furnish the photocopies of the claim papers submitted earlier with the department. On preliminary scrutiny of the papers, it's very difficult to ascertain the veracity and authenticity of the photocopies of the claim papers. From the existing records of Umbergaon Division, it is clear that the refund claim of the claimant is not pending for any reasons. It is also not on record whether the SCN issued earlier in the matter vide F. No. V/18-490/2004-05/R, dated 10.10.2005 is decided or otherwise. Therefore, it can be presumed that the claim might have been rejected or sanctioned by the department Also, the lethargic approach of the claimant for the raising the dormant issue of the refund claim o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f necessary materials, then the authority could have taken an appropriate decision one way or the other for passing an appropriate order. We fail to understand what was the good ground for the department to issue three show cause notices. 9. We inquired with Mr. Nainawati, the learned counsel as to whether, at any point of time, he was asked to reconstruct the necessary record available with him for the purpose of deciding the claim. Mr. Nainawati, in reply to our specific question, answered that in the past, on many occasions, the record was reconstructed and was furnished to the concerned department for the purpose of getting the claim processed. 10. We do not propose to go further into any other controversy. We propose to dispose o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
