9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 913X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order quashing and setting aside impugned order dated 11.11.2019 (annexed at Annexure A) passed by the 2nd respondent authority; B. Pending notice, admission and final hearing of this petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay the operation and implementation of the impugned order dated 11.11.2019 (annexed at Annexure A); C. Ex parte ad interim relief in terms of prayer B may kindly be granted. D. Such further relief(s) as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted in the interest of justice for which act of kindness your petitioners shall forever pray." 2. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as submitted mentioning the broad grounds of defence and requesting for opportunity to offer explanation in details since the matter involved issues of computation rather than the legal issues. 7. Thereafter, on 16th October 2019, the advocate of the writ applicants appeared and submitted various documents. The entire matter was regarding the reconciliation between the books of accounts and returns of the writ applicants and therefore, again, a request was made for opportunity of hearing since the reconciliation would have to be explained in details. The writ applicants were in fact ready to offer explanation then and there itself. However, the 2nd respondent authority informed that she would first need to go through the reply and document ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .5% of tax demand as per Section 83 of the Finance Act read with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the matter may be remanded on the basis of such condition. Reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in the case of Neptune Reality Pvt Ltd. vs. Principal Commissioner [Special Civil Application No.22536 of 2017 decided on 5th April 2018]. 10. On the other hand, Mr. Raval the learned Senior Standing Counsel vehemently opposed this writ application and submitted that ample opportunity was given to the writ applicant to make good their case before the respondent No.2. Mr. Raval invited the attention of this Court to the findings recorded by the authority in the impugned order. Mr. Raval laid much emphasis on what has been s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion that the writ applicants shall make a pre-deposit of the sum of Rs. 9,21,490/, which is 7.5% of the net tax demand as per the impugned order. The deposit shall be retained by the respondents subject to the final outcome of the fresh adjudication and the same may be adjusted or refunded, as the case may be, upon conclusion of the adjudication proceedings. 14. At this stage, we inquired with Mr. Sheth as to on what basis he has calculated the amount of Rs. 9,21,490/referred to above. Mr. Sheth explained that the net tax demand calculated by adding gross liability as per the para 1(a) of the operative portion of the impugned order and deducting therefrom admissible CENVAT Credit and self-assessed tax paid, which is appropriated against th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
