Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2019 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (1) TMI 499 - MADRAS HIGH COURTValidity of SCN - Jurisdiction - petitioner challenged the show cause notice on the ground that it is without jurisdiction, clear abuse of process of law and therefore, the revenue should be prohibited from proceeding further with the show cause notice - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - what is received by the petitioner and what is sent back by the petitioner are both petroleum gases. - Scope of exemption notifications Held that:- what is to be borne in mind is that the product is petroleum gases and other gaseous hydrocarbons. If we turn to the show cause notice issued, the attempt of the revenue is that the composition of the goods received by CPCL and the goods returned to CPCL are different in its chemical composition and the product is distinguishable. - The revenue nowhere denies the fact that the product returned is a petroleum gas which should have been the only factor that is relevant. It is not a case of inherent lack of jurisdiction but an imposed restriction which has been elucidated in several decisions which were cited by Mr.Rajnish Pathiyil, learned SCGSC appearing for the revenue - we do not agree with his submission that there is an absolute and total bar for entertaining a writ petition which has been clarified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in several decisions and when a show cause notice is challenged as being without jurisdiction or when it is a case of abuse of process of law, this Court is well justified in exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the preliminary objection raised by the revenue before us is held to be not sustainable and the finding recorded by the learned Single Bench in that regard is affirmed. The Central Government clearly understood the manufacturing process and taken into consideration that the return quantity of LPG has ultimately been cleared on payment of appropriate duty by oil Companies, the Central Government is satisfied that the burden of excise duty on the returned quantity of LPG, which was originally supplied by MRL to the writ petitioner at the price for industrial use, has fallen on the writ petitioner which is much more than the excise duty applicable on the quantity of LPG actually consumed by them. The adhoc exemption order is a clear answer to the case of the appellant. The learned Single Bench was perfectly right in entertaining the writ petition and quashing the impugned show cause notice that it has been wholly without jurisdiction. Furthermore, the learned Single Bench rightly held that they cannot upset the apple-cart and try to come to a new conclusion, that too, after a period of nearly 24 years - appeal dismissed - decided against the revenue.
|