9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 44X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y and validity of the show cause notice dated 18/03/2019 issued by the Principal Commissioner, Central GST and Central Excise, Vadodara. 2. By issue of the said show cause notice, the writ applicant has been called upon to show cause as to why- (i) The Central Excise Duty amounting to Rs. 2,70,17,147/- (Annexure A) and Cenvat credit of Rs. 13,65,766/(Annexure B) should not be demanded under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. (ii) The Cenvat Credit of Rs. 13,65,766/which was reversed by the assessee vide entry No. 182 dated 21.01.2006, should not be appropriated. (iii) The interest at appropriate rate on Central Excise duty and Cenvat Credit availed should not be recovered from them under Section 11AA of the Central Excise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s therefore humbly requested that order for remission of duty and further destruction of the said goods may kindly be granted. 4. It is further pointed out that the aforesaid remission application filed by the writ applicant, came to be rejected by the Commissioner vide order dated 06/06/2017. The operative part of the order passed by the Commissioner reads thus: ORDER I reject the application dated 23.01.2006 and re-application dated 22.05.2015 made by the assessee, M/s. Dhariwal Industries Pvt. Ltd., N.H. No. 8, At. Fazalpur, Post. Sankarda, Dist. Vadodara, to claim remission of duty involved in goods amounting to Rs. 2,70,17,147/-. (MALLIKA MAHAJAN) Commissioner Date: 06.06.2017. 5. It is further pointed out that the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner for the reason that whether the goods can be repacked and sold it is completely on the assessee to decide after analyzing the practicability, feasibility and viability. If the assessee decides that the goods are not marketable and claims for destruction of the same and apply for remission of duty, the department had no option except to allow the remission of duty. It is important to note that in the process of destruction of goods, it is not the department alone forgoing excise duty of Rs. 2,70,17,147/but the appellant is also losing the value of such goods which is much more than the duty of excise. Therefore, for claiming the destruction of the goods and remission of duty thereon, the malafide intention cannot be attributed to the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urnable on 31/07/2019. In the meantime, let there be an ad interim order in terms of Para 8(B). Direct service is permitted." 2. When this matter came up for hearing today, learned advocate Mr. Premal Joshi submitted that the goods which are lying without any use since 2004 have become unfit for consumption and therefore sought permission of this Court to destroy/destruct the same. 3. It was further submitted by learned advocate Mr. Joshi upon instructions that such permission may be granted on any condition so as to enable the petitioner for destruction of such goods during pendency of this petition. 4. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Vyas objected to such request on the ground that as per the show-cause notice which is under ch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
