9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 149X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n seeks to rectify the technical plea and objection. The application is allowed. W.P.(C) 6092/2008 1. Commissionerate of Central Excise and the Director of Revenue Intelligence have questioned order dated 18.02.2008 passed by the Settlement Commission on the settlement application filed by M/s Shiv Durga Plast Private Limited, respondent no. 1, herein. The prayer made in the writ petition reads as under:- "16. So it is prayed that: a. This Hon?ble Court may be pleased to set-aside/quash order No. A-829- 830/CE/08-SC (PB) and F-745-746/CE/08-SC (PB) dated 18.02.2008 to the extent of denial of recovery of CENVAT credit amounting to Rs. 61,32,963/-. b. Direct the respondents to pay a sum of Rs. 61,32,963/-.demanded towards CENVAT c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned counsel for the petitioners was directed to file an affidavit of the competent authority clarifying whether the said CENVAT credit was utilized. 5. In the affidavit filed by the petitioners on 24.09.2011, it is stated that CENVAT credit of Rs. 61,32,963/- was set off/ utilized by respondent no. 1 in the manufacture of the final product PVC compound(Shoe Sole grade). However, during investigation and verification, the petitioners learnt and concluded that the raw material was never utilized but sold in the local market without bills and PVC compound was never manufactured or exported. 6. Thus the case of the petitioners is that the respondent no. 1 did not manufacture PVC compound whatsoever. Logically and as a sequeitor it has to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 40/- i.e. the balance amount of CENVAT credit of Rs. 61,32,963/- has not been paid and stands rejected. Thus it is not the case of the petitioners that the respondent no. 1 had taken refund or passed on CENVAT credit of Rs. 35,19,040/-to a third party. 10. In these circumstances and facts, we do not think the prayers made survive or require consideration. They are infructuous. Apparently, the petitioners did not examine the order of the Settlement Commission and whether or not the respondent no. 1 had taken CENVAT benefit or passed on the CENVAT benfit to the extent of Rs. 35,19,040/-. In the first place, the figure of Rs. 61,32,963/- should not have been mentioned in the prayer clause as the Settlement Commission itself had directed refun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
