9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 535X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Notice SI.No.01/2021-AC(CBEIV) dated 19.02.2021 has been confirmed. Operative portion of the impugned order reads as under:- "A.I demand an amount of Rs. 36,40,941/- (Rupees Thirty Six Lakhs Forty Thousand Nine Hundred and Forty one only) from M/s.Alpha Helical Pumps Pvt Ltd being the Excise duty collected from their buyers for the period from 01.07.2015 to 30.06.2017 under Section 11D(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. B.I appropriate an amount of Rs. 24,73,472/- paid by them under SVLDRS on 29.06.2020 towards the Excise duty liability for the period from 01.07.2015 to 30.06.2017. C.I order recovery of appropriate interest from M/s.Alpha Helical, under Section 11AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944. D.I impose a penalty of Rs. 36, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .07.2015 to 30.06.2017 which has been now appropriated vide impugned order. For the balance amount of Rs. 11,67,469/-, the petitioner had attempted to pay the duty by debiting the CENVAT credit that would have been available if the petitioner had filed the return in time. 4. The impugned order is challenged by the petitioner primarily on the ground that invocation of Section 11(D) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was without jurisdiction. It is submitted that at best the Department could have issued a notice either under Section 11A(1) or Section 11A(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It is submitted that unless there was excess collection of tax/duty assessed or determined under Section 11D (1) and 11(D)(1A) of the Central Excise Act, 194 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9. However, the petitioner has chosen to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the ground that there was no jurisdiction to issue of notice under Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 10. This is a peculiar case where the petitioner has admitted to the tax liability by filing a declaration in SVLDRS - 1 on 31.12.2019. The declaration filed on 31.12.2019 in SVLDRS - 1 was also accepted by the respondent on 08.01.2020 by issuance of Form SVLDRS - 3. The petitioner opted to pay the amount in cash as the scheme does not contemplate discharge of liability from the input tax credit (CENVAT) under Rule 3 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Since the petitioner failed to pay the differential amount of Rs. 11, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the Form of Rule 3(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 provided petitioner has document to establish that petitioner had indeed purchase inputs/services on payment of tax duty. This would require a determination by the respondent. The benefit of input tax credit in the Form of CENVAT Credit under Rule 3(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 cannot be denied in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Formica India Division, Pune Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay reported in 1984 17 ELT 590. 15. As far as imposition of penalty is concerned, same can be re-visited by the respondent as to whether the petitioner is to be imposed with penalty for the failure to pay the tax in time. 16. This Writ Petition stands dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
