Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2024 (6) TMI 1179

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... V D. KARIA AND HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA Appearance: For the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2 : Mr Hasit Dave(1321) For the Respondent(s) No. 1,2 : None ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA) 1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for the following prayers :- (A) Your Lordships be pleased to direct the respondent authorities by way of an appropriate writ, order or direction or appropriate writ of Mandamus, or any such other writ order or direction, to immediately calculate and grant interest @ 12% from the date of deposit of Rs. 12,90,000/- ie. 7-4-199, till date, within 30 days and failing which to grant 9% interest therefrom, till its actual payment. (B) .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he Show Cause Notice should not be disallowed and recovered from them under clause (i) read with clause(ii) of Rule 57 1(1) of the Central Excise Rules 1944. b) penalty equal to the amount of modvat credit determined to be disallowable and recoverable, should not be demanded and recovered from them under the provision of Rule 57 1(4) ibid; c) interest at the rate of 20% on the amount of Modvat credit determined to be disallowable and recoverable, should not be demanded and recovered from them under the provision of Rule 57 1(5) ibid; d) why the amount of RS. 12,90,000/- (Rupees twelve lakh ninety thousand only) paid by them through their P.L.A. Entry No. 2 dated 7.4.99 and through their modvat account Entry No. 23 dated 7.4.99 should not be .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... view of the reliance placed only on retracted statement and since the principle of natural justice were not followed while passing the order in original. 5. After the remand, the adjudicating authority passed an Order-in-original dated 31.3.2007 reiterating the original order confirming the entire demand with interest and penalty. 6. The petitioners therefore filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who again remanded the matter vide order dated 30.10.2008 for fresh adjudication and the Assistant Commissioner Excise, Vadodara again passed an order on 30.10.2008 confirming the demand along with interest and penalty. 7. The petitioner therefore was constrained to file an appeal for the 3rd time before the Commissioner (Appeals) which w .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e petitioners from 7.10.1999 onwards. 14. The petitioners therefore being aggrieved for non payment of interest from 7.10.2011 on amount of Rs. 12,90,000/- by the respondent No. 2, has preferred this petition with the aforesaid prayers. 15. Learned advocate Mr. Hasit Dave for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are entitled to interest of Rs. 12,90,000/- from 7.10.1999 as the Commissioner (Appeals) has deleted the entire addition by the order dated 28.10.2021 and therefore the amount which was collected coercively by the officers of DGCEI during the search on 7.10.1999 by compelling the petitioners to pay Rs. 12,90,000/- by debiting the PLA and Cenvat credit account is required to be paid with interest to the petitioners from the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... te Mr. Dave also referred to and relied upon the decision of the Hon ble Madras High Court rendered in case of Cacutta Iron Steel Company Vs. CESTAT, Chennai reported in 2017 (350) ELT 327 (Mad.) wherein, the Hon ble Madras High Court in the facts of the said case held that the DRI could not have jurisdiction to demand and collect any amount from the assessee during the course of search as the officers were not vested with powers of an Assessing Officer. It was submitted that in the facts of the present case also the officers of DGCEI had no power or authority to compel the assessee to deposit the amount during the course of search on 7.10.1999 as they were not having the power of Assessing Officer. It was therefore submitted that since the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates