TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 666X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e under Central Excise. Based on this communication, the learned counsel for the Petitioner vehemently contended that the Superior Kerosene Oil is not an excisable product and would not fall under Fourth Schedule to the Central Excise Act, 1944 - If the Respondents would have given an opportunity to the Petitioner to produce the said communication dated 26/11/2019 and to explain as to how the Superior Kerosene Oil is not an excisable goods and as to why the Superior Kerosene Oil would not fall under the Fourth schedule, then the scenario would have been different. Even issue of interpretation whether the Superior Kerosene Oil was an excisable product or not and whether the Superior Kerosene Oil falls under Fourth Schedule or not would have bearing on the aspect of eligibility of the Petitioner to file such declaration under the said Scheme or not and thus warrant personal hearing to the Petitioner before deciding the issue of eligibility - the order of rejection is in violation of principal of natural justice and thus, it deserves to be quashed and set aside. - WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 5066 OF 2020 - - - Dated:- 10-1-2022 - R. D. DHANUKA AND S. M. MODAK, JJ. Ms. Padmavati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missioner seeking clarification on applicability of SVLDR scheme to the Superior Kerosene Oil. However, on 06/02/2020, the Commissioner rejected the said application filed by the Petitioner on various grounds. 9. The Petitioner applied for intervention of the Member (GST-CX, ST, Legal and CV), Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs vide letter dated 12/02/2020 with a request to restore the application filed by the Petitioner and enable them to pay the tax dues and settle the issue under the said Scheme. There was no response to the said request made by the Petitioner. The Petitioner thus filed this Petition. 10. Ms. Padmavati Patil, the learned counsel for the Petitioner invited our attention to the Form SVLDRS-1 filed by the Petitioner annexed at Exh. B of the petition and the order passed by the Commissioner thereon rejecting the said application on the ground that the application belongs to goods of Fourth Schedule. 11. The learned counsel for the Petitioner invited our attention to the Fourth schedule and also Section 125 of the Finance Act, 2019. She submits that in no circumstances, Superior Kerosene Oil would fall under the Fourth schedule. She submits that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng to notice of the Commissioner, the communication dated 26/11/2019 from Shri Navraj Goel, OSD (CX) to the Petitioner. If the said communication would have been brought to the notice of the Respondents, the office of the Commissioner could have confirmed the same with CBIC and taken a considered view accordingly. 18. It is not in dispute that the Petitioner had filed SVLDRS declaration form under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme 2019. It was the case of the Petitioner that the Superior Kerosene Oil did not fall under Fourth Schedule or in any event not an excisable goods. The said application however was rejected without rendering a personal hearing to the Petitioner and only rejected with remarks on the ground of ineligibility i.e. the application belongs to goods of Fourth Schedule . The Petitioner thereafter made various representations to the Respondents. In the said representations it was vehemently contended by the Petitioner, as to, how the Superior Kerosene Oil did not fall under Fourth Schedule or in any event was not an excisable product. The Petitioner had also pointed out that in similar case of Superior Kerosene Oil valuation for the Petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 26/11/2019 from Shri Navraj Goyal, OSD (CX) clarifying that only the Petroleum Crude, high speed diesel, motor spirit, natural gas, aviation turbine fuel and tobacco and tobacco products are under Central Excise. Based on this communication, the learned counsel for the Petitioner vehemently contended that the Superior Kerosene Oil is not an excisable product and would not fall under Fourth Schedule to the Central Excise Act, 1944. 23. If the Respondents would have given an opportunity to the Petitioner to produce the said communication dated 26/11/2019 and to explain as to how the Superior Kerosene Oil is not an excisable goods and as to why the Superior Kerosene Oil would not fall under the Fourth schedule, then the scenario would have been different. 24. Even issue of interpretation whether the Superior Kerosene Oil was an excisable product or not and whether the Superior Kerosene Oil falls under Fourth Schedule or not would have bearing on the aspect of eligibility of the Petitioner to file such declaration under the said Scheme or not and thus warrant personal hearing to the Petitioner before deciding the issue of eligibility. 25. In our view, the impugned order an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
