9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 1824X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rescinded all of them, list of which has been appended thereto. The aforesaid Master Circular addresses references from trade and field formations and provides clarity and uniformity on the issues so raised. The aforesaid Circular covers 31 different subjects. Part I of the Master Circular deals with Demand; show cause notice; Structure of show cause notice; Authority to adjudicate; Limitation to demand duty; Extended period; Applicability of limitation in demanding interest; Demand due to Department Audit or CERA; Pre show cause notice consultation; Authority to issue show cause notice; Unjust enrichment in show cause notice; Changing Practice of Assessment; Waiver of show cause notice and; Call Book Cases. Part II of the Master Circular deals with Adjudication, Monetary limits and other issues; Jurisdiction of Executive Commissionerate; Adjudication by officers of Audit Commissionerate; Cases investigated by DGCEI; Service of show cause notice and Relied Upon Documents; Stages of adjudication; Corrigendum to an adjudication order; Transfer of adjudicating authority; Signing of the order and; Adjudication of SOFs/LAR raised by CERA. In part III, subjects of confirmed demands and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Deputy Commissioner/Assistant Commissioner in addition to the cases exceeding rupees 10 Lakhs but not exceeding rupees 50 lakhs. i. Refund matters (including rebate), shall be adjudicated by the Deputy Commissioner/Assistant Commissioner without any monetary limit. ii. In case different show cause notices have been issued on the same issue answerable to different adjudicating authorities, Show Cause Notices involving the same issue shall be adjudicated by the adjudicating authority competent to decide the case involving the highest amount of duty." 4. The facts of the case, necessary for deciding present controversy lie in a narrow compass. A show cause notice CNo. DZU/INV/CE/G/49/2013/ 1550, dated 1-3-2016 was issued by the Additional Director General, Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence, Delhi Zonal Unit, New Delhi (for short 'the DGCEI') to M/s. Chandra Protech Ltd., Silvassa for denial and recovery of Cenvat Credit of Rs. 22,45,79,860/- along with interest besides invocation of penal provisions. This show cause notice was made answerable to the Additional Director General (Adjudication), DGCEI, Delhi Zonal Unit, Delhi. Another show cause notic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 164, ".... . That Sh. Yogesh Singh had one more company ..... . Know the names of other directors 5. Statement dated 21-5-2013 of Sh. Yogesh Singh, Director of M/s. Sypher Impex Para 2.4.3.1, page 116, 117 At page 117 .... . In 2012 April, he started manufacturing company .... were also looked after by Rimika Gupta...." Para 14, page 165 ".... . In 2012 April, he started manufacturing company .... were also looked after by Rimika Gupta.... ." 6. Statement dated 30-5-2013 of Sh. Pawan Kumar Gupta - Director M/s. Skyward Rolling Para 2.4.3.2, page 119, 120 ".... . on being shown the statement dated 21-5-2013 of Sh. Yogesh Singh .... amount mutually agreed upon by him and Sh. Pawan Aggarwal...." Para 15, page 167 " ... . on being shown the statement dated 21-5-2013 of Sh. Yogesh Singh ... amount mutually agreed upon by him and Sh. Pawan Aggarwal...." 6.1 Do 3rd para from top, page 120 ".... . During the statement, Sh. Pawan Kumar Gupta.... . Companies/firm of Sh. Pawan Kumar Gupta & Sh. Yogesh Singh.... ." Para 15.1, page 167 ".... . During the statement, Sh. Pawan Kumar Gupta.... . Companies/firm of Sh. Pawan Kumar Gupta & Sh. Yogesh Singh.... ." 7. Statements of tran ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ....." xxxxxx 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner-assessee argued that as per Clause 11.2 of the Master Circular, in the case of different show cause notices issued on the same issue answerable to different adjudicating authorities, show cause notice involving the same issue shall be adjudicated by the adjudicating authority competent to decide the case involving the highest amount of duty, which according to him, would be the Additional Director General, Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence, Delhi Zonal Unit, New Delhi where the adjudication proceedings are still pending. 7. Learned Counsel for the Revenue however objected to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the petitioners have alternative efficacious remedy by way of appeal under Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. However, responding to the argument raised by Learned Counsel for the petitioners, his submission is that C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 1000/7/2015-CX, dated 3-3-2015 and Circular No. 1053/2/2017-CX., dated 10-3-2017 are applicable only in res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... use notices are based on common evidence relied before different adjudicating authorities by the department, thus, giving rise to possibility of divergent views by two different adjudicating authorities. It is in order to avoid such a situation that the Central Board of Central Excise and Customs, New Delhi, in its wisdom, has rightly provided that in the case of different show cause notices issued on the same issue answerable to different adjudicating authorities, show cause notice involving the same issue shall be adjudicated by the adjudicating authority competent to decide the case involving the highest amount of duty. Admittedly, first show cause notice C No. DZU/INV/CE/G/49/2013/1550, dated 1-3-2016 containing denial and recovery of Cenvat credit of Rs. 22,45,79,860/- along with interest, besides invocation of penal provisions, had the highest amount of duty as compared to denial and recovery of Cenvat credit of Rs. 12,86,71,912/- along with interest besides invocation of penal provisions contained in another show cause notice C No. V(H)Adj/CE-74/Alw/132/2017, dated 2-5-2017, which culminated in the impugned Order-in-Original. 10. Argument of the respondents that reques ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
