9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 400X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore taking any action as is envisaged in the impugned show cause notice against the petitioner. It seems that the application of the petitioner for refund remained undecided and the Respondent No. 2 instead proceeded to recover the amount, which as per the Respondent No. 2 was illegally utilized/withdrawn by the petitioner by issuing a show cause notice dated 13.07.2018. Undoubtedly, the petitioner has been heard in the matter and he was given an opportunity to reply the same. The adjudicating authority has also passed a reasoned order but that does not meet the requirement of Section 11B as no such adjudication is apparent from the reading of the impugned order of adjudication. The amount which is subject matter of the show cause notice a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter 28 of First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The petitioner is using slag, ash and residues (mainly containing zinc), zinc waste and scrap etc. falling under Chapter Heading 26201900 19020090 respectively as raw material. The unit of the petitioner went into commercial production w.e.f. 03.03.2009. The petitioner having its unit established in the notified areas of J K had been availing the facility of exemption envisaged by notification no. 56/2002-C.E. dated 14.11.2002 and was availing self-credited facility as per Para-2 of the notification. 3. It is alleged that during the period from May 2009 to March 2016, the petitioner had purchased slag, ash and residue (mainly containing zinc) and zinc waste and scrap etc on pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Coordinate Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 16.04.2019, permitting the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to lay challenge to the show cause notice as also the proposed action, if any, taken by the respondents by filing a composite writ petition. This is how the petitioner is before us in this petition challenging both the show cause notice and the consequential order passed by the adjudicating authority. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, we are of the considered opinion that the claim of the petitioner for the refund in terms of Section 11-B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 ought to have been decided before taking any action as is envisaged in the im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
