TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 317X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... c) 125 (1) (d) of Finance Act, 2019 - HELD THAT:- Undoubtedly, Section 121(c) defines 'amount of arrears' means the amount of duty, which is recoverable as arrears of duty under the direct tax enactment in the situations specified. It in no manner deals with the amount of erroneous refund recoverable from the assessee. Moreover, the provisions of Section 125(1) (b) specifically exclude the persons from eligibility to make a declaration under the Scheme who have been issued a show cause notice under indirect tax enactment for erroneous refund or refund. Admittedly, after the SLP filed by the Revenue against the judgment dated 24.8.16 being allowed by the Supreme Court, a show cause notice was issued by the competent authority call ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of provisions of clause (c) of Section 121 of Finance Act, 2019 (for short the Act of 2019 ), stands rejected by the designated committee. 2. The facts relevant are that pursuant to the proceeding initiated by the adjudicating authority under Section 11 A of Central Excise Act, 1944 against the petitioner for levy of excise duty in respect of process of cutting of marble blocks into marble slabs and tiles, vide order dated 20.11.97, a demand of excise duty to the tune of ₹ 20,80,834/- and penalty of ₹ 20,50,000/- was imposed. However, an appeal preferred by the petitioner before the Custom Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ('the Tribunal') was disposed of by the Tribunal by remanding the matter back to the adjudicatin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nalty and interest was set aside. Consequently, vide order dated 30.11.17 issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise Service Tax, Division D, Kankaroli, the petitioner was directed to refund the amount of ₹ 26,80,834/- erroneously granted. The petitioner challenged the legality of the order dated 30.11.17 before this Court by way of Writ Petition being D.B.C.W.P. No.880/18 which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 26.4.19 and the order dated 30.11.17 was upheld. The SLP preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 26.4.19 passed by this Court was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 2.7.19. Consequently, the Superintendent, Central Excise, Goods Service, Range XVI, Kankaroli, raised ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... though, the show cause notice issued was for recovery of erroneous refund/refund. Learned counsel submitted that the designated committee could not have read 'show cause notice relating to erroneous refund/refund' as an issue relating to erroneous refund/refund and thus, the designated committee has seriously erred in rejecting the application preferred by the petitioner seeking benefits under the Scheme of 2019. 4. On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the relief under the Scheme of 2019 is available to a declarant who has an amount of arrears and not for refund erroneously made. Learned counsel submitted that by virtue of provisions of Section 125 (d), the petitioner is not entitled to main ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rable as arrears of duty under the direct tax enactment in the situations specified. It in no manner deals with the amount of erroneous refund recoverable from the assessee. Moreover, the provisions of Section 125(1) (b) specifically exclude the persons from eligibility to make a declaration under the Scheme who have been issued a show cause notice under indirect tax enactment for erroneous refund or refund. Admittedly, after the SLP filed by the Revenue against the judgment dated 24.8.16 being allowed by the Supreme Court, a show cause notice was issued by the competent authority calling upon the petitioner to show cause and explain within 30 days of receipt of the notice as to why ₹ 26,80,834/- refunded to them erroneously should no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
