TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 60X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d from 15-3-2020 till 2-10-2021 and it was further provided that In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15-3-2020 till 2-10-2021, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 3-10-2021. In the event actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 3-10-2021, is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply. The petitioner has been able to show a prima facie case for hearing because if the requirement of requesting for fixation of a special rate in respect of value addition to the manufactured goods had arisen only after the final judgment of the Supreme Court of India on 22-4-2020, the period of limitation would stand extended for a period of 90 days from 3-10-2021 and therefore, the application which was submitted on 20-10-2021 by the petitioner was well within the period of limitation. Therefore, the balance of convenience tilts in favour of interim protection to the petitioner. The Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled to interim protection till disposal of the application dated 20-10-2021 by the competent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itioner therein was entitled to 100% exemption from payment of excise duty as per notifications dated 8-7-1999 and 25-4-2007. W.A. No. 243/2009 filed to challenge the judgment was dismissed on 20-11-2014 [2015 (320) E.L.T. 216 (Gau.)]. The Revenue filed SLP before the Supreme Court of India and the said Hon ble Court by order dated 7-12-2015 in IA No. 3/2015 in SLP (C) No. 11878/2015 [2016 (342) E.L.T. A44 (S.C.)], stayed the operation of the impugned judgment dated 20-11-2014 in WA No. 243/2009, inter alia, directing the authorities to release 50% of the amount due to the respondents therein in terms of the judgment, subject to furnishing solvent surety to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Commissioner and on such condition, the contempt proceedings initiated against the concerned Excise officials was also stayed. It is projected that thereafter the respondent authorities had released to the petitioner the refund of Rs. 1,52,55,181/-. 6. The Civil Appeal Nos. 2256-2263/2020 filed by the Revenue was allowed by the Supreme Court of India by order dated 22-4-2020 [2020 (372) E.L.T. 495 (S.C.)]. Thereafter, the respondent No. 3 had served to the petitioner reminder letters da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court in W.P. (C) 1644/2021 (M/s. Jyothy Labs Ltd. v. Union of India and 2 Others), (ii) judgment and order dated 12-8-2021 passed by this Court in W.P. (C) 3569/2021 (M/s. Jyothy Labs Ltd. v. Union of India 2 Others), (iii) orders passed from time to time by Supreme Court of India in Re : Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, SMW (C) No. 3/2020, and (iv) orders passed from time to time by Supreme Court of India in Re : Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, M.A. No. 665/2021 in SMW (C) No. 3/2020 [2021 (378) E.L.T. 241 (S.C.) = 2021 (54) G.S.T.L. 3 (S.C.)]. 9. Per contra, the Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 has submitted that the demand for refund was occasioned because by virtue of the conditional interim order passed by the Supreme Court of India, the Central Excise Department had made conditional refund of 50% of excise duty paid. It is also submitted that due to the terms imposed by the Supreme Court of India in the said order, the petitioner had submitted solvent surety. Accordingly, it is submitted that the petitioner was required to refund the excise duty assessed with interest and penalty immediately after the appeal of the respondent her ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anufactured goods and even if there would have been a determination of such special rate, the same would have remained ineffective and un-implementable till the Supreme Court had finally decided the issue which was done as per the judgment dated 20-4-2020 in Civil Appeal No. 2256-2263 of 2020, and further the relevance of such determination would again depend on the outcome of the appeal that was pending before the Supreme Court. We have taken note of that immediately after the judgment dated 20-4-2020 in Civil Appeal No. 2256-2263 of 2020, when the occasion had again arisen for the petitioner assessee to seek for fixation of a special rate in respect of the value addition to the manufactured goods for the purpose of payment of the excise duty, the application for such request was made within a period of one month, which is on 18-5-2020. From such point of view, it cannot be wholly said that the petitioner would now be prevented from claiming their legal right for fixation of a special rate to the value addition to the manufactured goods merely because such application was not made within 30th September of that given financial year to which the claim for fixation of the said rate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om 15-3-2020 till 2-10-2021 and it was further provided in para-II of the order dated 23-9-2021 in M.A. No. 665/2021 as follows - II. In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15-3-2020 till 2-10-2021, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 3-10-2021. In the event actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 3-10-2021, is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply. 12. Therefore, it appears that the petitioner has been able to show a prima facie case for hearing because if the requirement of requesting for fixation of a special rate in respect of value addition to the manufactured goods had arisen only after the final judgment of the Supreme Court of India on 22-4-2020, the period of limitation would stand extended for a period of 90 days from 3-10-2021 and therefore, the application which was submitted on 20-10-2021 by the petitioner was well within the period of limitation. Therefore, the balance of convenience tilts in favour of interim protection to the petitioner. 13. In view of the discussions above and in light o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
