Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s. Adani Enterprises Ltd. Versus Union of India And Others

2015 (10) TMI 2147 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

Denial of rebate claim - Suppression of production by the processor of textiles - Violation of principle of natural justice - Notification No.31/98, dated 16.2.1999 - Held that:- Appellate authority has nothing but dissected from its own earlier order, dated 01.8.2006 wherein, as already stated, having discussed the issue in detail by following the rulings of the Apex Court in the matter of audi alteram partem, directed the lower authority to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to peruse th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ect from its own earlier order and come to contrary conclusion, that too at first stage, giving relief to the aggrieved party and at later stage, taking away such relief and if it is allowed, in my opinion it would certainly lead to travesty of justice as it amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. - Impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee. - Writ Petition Nos.13672 to 13675 of 2015 And M.P.Nos.1 to 1 & 2 to 2 of 2014 - Dated:- 4-8-2015 - S.Vaidyanathan, J For t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

have procured grey woven power loom fabrics from various places and got them processed at M/s.Erode Rana Textitle Processors Ltd., Erode and thereafter, they exported to various foreign countries. The petitioner claimed rebate of duty as per Notification No.31/98, dated 16.2.1999 to the tune of ₹ 81,68,999/- for the goods exported by them during the period of January 1999 to March 2000. Upon investigation by the Central Excise Preventive Group, it was revealed that the processor who under .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ved by the said order, dated 31.3.2006, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), Salem. The appellate authority vide his order-in-appeal No.144/2006, dated 1.8.2006, while setting aside the order, dated 31.3.2006, remanded the matter to the lower authority. However, the matter was adjudicated denovo vide order, dated 12.09.2008, confirming the demand of ₹ 30,73,604/- along with interest and penalty of ₹ 30,73,604/-. Again, the petitioner preferred an appe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

id of merits vide order, dated 6.3.2014. Consequent to the dismissal of the revision, the 7th respondent sent demand letter, dated 4.4.2014, demanding ₹ 30,73,604/- along with interest and penalty. Further, the 6th respondent also sent demand letter dated 9.4.2014, demanding the same. 4. Questioning all these proceedings, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petitions. 5. A common counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents, wherein, while reiterating the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

providing copies of any more documents to the petitioner and without granting a personal hearing. According to the respondents, when the processor himself has accepted the contents of the documents as correct and accepted their guilty, providing copies of some of the documents for perusal by the petitioner is neither warranted nor will serve any purpose. Hence, it was rightly found that there was no infirmity in the denovo order and the plea of the petitioner was rightly rejected and therefore, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

and above the eligible rebate based on the disclaimer certificate issued by the manufacturer, who actually paid the appropriate duty under ACP scheme. Thus an order in original, dated 28.8.2006 had been passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem on the processor M/s.Erode Rana Textile Processors (P) Ltd., Bhavani (ERTP) confirming the demand of ₹ 4,00,72,500/- along with interest besides imposition of penalties. The said ERTP have not filed any appeal against the said order and a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

y rejected the revision application filed by the petitioner, which does not warrant interference of this Court. With these averments, the respondents sought for dismissal of the writ petitions. 7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire documents available on record. 8. The specific case against the petitioner is that it had claimed rebate based on the production particulars submitted by M/s.Erode Rana Textile Processors (P) Ltd., Bhavani (ERTP) to the departme .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

which was served on the petitioner on 10.5.2004. It is not in dispute that in the show cause notice, it has been clearly mentioned that the petitioner was permitted to peruse the records relied upon by the department and take copies thereof, if required. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner sent a letter dated 31.5.2004 to the 5th respondent, requesting to send the relied upon documents to them at Ahmedabad. However, since there was no provision to send the relied upon documents to the notice a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

er, since there was no appearance on behalf of the petitioner despite enough opportunities, the 5th respondent decided the issue on the basis of the materials available on record and accordingly, passed ex parte order in original, dated 31.3.2006, demanding ₹ 30,73,604/- apart from imposing penalty and interest. Aggrieved against the said order, dated 31.3.2006, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who, by order in original, dated 1.8.2006, has categori .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

us, the appellant should be given adequate opportunity for perusal of the documents and to take copies of the same if required by the appellant. The appellant is directed to submit the reply within one month from the date of completion of the receipt/perusal of the relied upon documents and the lower authority is directed to pass an appealable order thereafter. It is needless to stress that appellant should be given the opportunity of hearing before passing the order. 9. Pursuant to the above or .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

efforts by discussing each and every point in detail for reaching to the definite conclusion as to how the petitioner in collusion with M/s.ERTP, indulged in defeating the very purpose of scheme by claiming excessive rebate illegally. But, at the same time, this Court cannot ignore the fact of the benefit derived by the petitioner by virtue of succeeding in the appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), who in fact, has considered the dictum of the Apex Court pertaining to the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the documents for perusal before giving any reply. It cannot be said that there is laxity on the part of the appellant. The appellant has repeatedly asked for the relied upon documents from the Lower Authority vide his letters dated 31.5.2004, 24.06.2004, 11.09.2004, 14.02.2005, 01.12.2005, 19.01.2006 and 23.2.2006. None of the letters seems to have been replied by the Lower Authority. If the letters had been replied properly and if the appellant has not availed the opportunity, it would have b .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ocument in violation of the principles of natural justice. I, therefore, set aside the impugned order and remand the case back to the lower authority for denovo proceedings. 10. Therefore, the appellate authority has categorically come to the conclusion that the entire case is on the documents recovered from the job worker of the appellant and the petitioner is right in asking for the documents for perusal before giving any reply and that none of the letters sent by the petitioner were not repli .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

at. When the whole scheme of evasion through illicit design had been accepted and uncontested by the processor M/s.ERTP, I hold that there is no necessity to provide such copies of documents to M/s.AEL. Admittedly, the petitioner has neither accepted nor uncontested the matter and since M/s.ERTP has accepted the evasion of the scheme, it does not mean or construe that the petitioner also accepted the same. In fact, the petitioner has been denying its involvement and repeatedly seeking for produc .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

confirmed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Salem, holding that In view of the facts and circumstances of the case as it stands now I am fully convinced with the findings of the lower authority who has passed the denovo order reconfirming the earlier stand without extending the opportunity to the appellants to peruse the relied upon documents and without granting a personal hearing. The documents required for perusal by the appellants are those of the processor M/s. Erode Rana Te .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version