TMI Blog2004 (4) TMI 98X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titioner to make payment of the outstanding Government dues arising from the Order-in-Original No. BVR/764 to 807/97, dated 24-12-1997/5-1-1998. 3.We have heard Mr. Paresh M. Dave, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. Dharmishta Raval, learned senior standing counsel for the Central Government, Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhavnagar and the Superintendent of Central Excise, ASBY, Alang, the respondents herein. 4.It appears that the above numbered order-in-original was passed pursuant to the 44 show cause notices including the show cause notice issued against the present petitioner No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as "the petitioners"). The petitioners, however, did not appear in response to the show cause notice nor di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioners on 1-3-1994 as is apparent from RG-23-A-Pt.II. Since, no Modvat credit was availed of duty on third vessel namely ZAKIR HUSSAIN, hence, the question of reversing any credit on clearance of the goods of Chapter 72 and 73 obtained from breaking up of ship ZAKIR HUSSAIN cannot and does not arise. In the instant case, the first show cause notice7. dated 15-9-1993 covered the period from March, 1993 to July, 1993, the second show cause notice dated 4-1-1994 covered the period from August, 1993 to November, 1993 and the third show cause notice dated 22-6-1994 covered the period from December, 1993 to February, 1994 and amounts of Rs. 49,50,190/-, Rs. 83,04,307/- and Rs. 52,38,682/- respectively were demanded thereunder allegedly being t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... avnagar, respondent No. 3 herein, has not looked into the matter and instead reiterated in the impugned communication dated 8-1-2004 (Annexure "L") the stand earlier adopted that the petitioners are liable to make payment of duty as per the order-in-original dated 24-12-1997/5-1-1998 since there was no stay granted by this Court. 6.Mr. Paresh M. Dave for the petitioners has submitted that in view of the aforesaid clear stand taken by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhavnagar that in respect of the two vessels the Modvat credit taken by the petitioner earlier was reversed and in case of the third vessel, no Modvat credit was taken, there was no liability to pay any duty. 7.On the other hand, Ms. Dharmishta Raval, learned se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the Central Government that if the petitioners had been careful enough in the original proceedings, the correct factual aspects would have been brought to the notice of the Assistant Commissioner at that point of time avoiding the two rounds of litigation. Hence, the petitioners are required to be directed to pay costs of these petitions. 10.In the result, the petition is allowed. The respondents are directed not to act upon the recovery notice dated 21-11-2002 (Annexure "G") and the further notice dated 8-1-2004 (Annexure "L") and to act in accordance with the statements made in the affidavit dated 22-1-2002 filed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhavnagar in Special Civil Application No. 11968 of 2002 as quoted in Par ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|