Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2018 (11) TMI 80

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ound of delay is not valid. The petitioners after receiving the communications in question made detailed correspondence with the departmental authorities trying to persuade them that the pre-deposit as well can be made with the aid of cenvat credit. Having failed in receiving the positive response, this petition came to be filed. Essentially, credit in an assessee's cenvat account is a duty he has already suffered which he can encash for specified purposes subject to conditions laid down under the Rules. Predeposit made by the petitioners by availing cenvat credit shall be accepted for the purpose of section 35F of the Central Excise Act - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner. - R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1981 of 2 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tioners deposited the specified sum, however, by debiting the cenvat credit account to that extent. According to the petitioners, this mode of deposit was even otherwise accepted by the department. The petitioners also relied on a circular issued by CESTAT dated 28.08.2014 clarifying that the appeals may be entertained, if mandatory, pre-deposit is made from cenvat account and evidence is produced. 3. Respondent No. 3-the Commissioner appeals however, did not accept the petitioners' stand in this regard and, by the impugned communication, insisted that the mode of making pre-deposit was not proper; and that he petitioner must deposit the amount in question in cash. The petitioners made further detailed correspondence with the said au .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... The decision of the Commissioner (Appeal) which is challenged by the petitioners can perhaps be categorized as mere communications. We wonder whether such communications can be termed as orders which are appelable. There is no dispute about the petitioners' liability to predeposit 7.5% of the disputed dues. The only dispute is whether such pre-deposit can be made only by cash or also by availing credit in cenvat account. It appears that Commissioner had not even put the petitioners to notice about the decision that he took in this regard. This was thus not a case of by parte hearing culminating into a quasi judicial decision formed by the Commissioner which was a mere communication of his opinion that such pre-deposit must be made in c .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates