TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court denies applicant's request for interim relief & early hearing, cites insufficiency of arguments.</h1> <h3>ZENITH SPINNERS, ZENITH EXPORTTHRO DIPESH MISHTRY Versus UNION OF INDIA</h3> ZENITH SPINNERS, ZENITH EXPORTTHRO DIPESH MISHTRY Versus UNION OF INDIA - TMI Issues:1. Grant of interim relief in connection with a notification issued by the respondent authority.2. Interpretation of Central Excise Rules and CENVAT Credit Rules.3. Consideration of alternative submissions for final hearing of the petition.Grant of Interim Relief:The Civil Application sought various reliefs, including staying the operation of a notification and directing the respondent authorities to grant rebate claims. The applicant argued that not granting interim relief would cause prejudice. The counsel relied on several legal decisions to support their case. The respondent opposed the prayers, stating that granting interim relief would be premature. The Court noted that granting the requested reliefs at this stage would be equivalent to allowing the petition prematurely. The suggestion of granting rebate claims subject to a bank guarantee was not accepted by either party. Consequently, the prayers for interim relief were not granted.Interpretation of Rules:The applicant highlighted Rules 18 and 19 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, emphasizing the difference in language between sub-rules (1) and (2) of Rule 19 and how the impugned notification contradicted the rules. Reference was also made to Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2002. The respondent contended that the notification was not in violation of the rules. The Court considered these arguments but ultimately did not find them sufficient to grant the interim relief sought.Alternative Submission for Final Hearing:The applicant proposed an early final hearing of the petition as an alternative. The respondent expressed no objection to an early final hearing. The Court reviewed the history of the petition, noting a prior rejection due to non-payment of process fees. Despite the alternative submission, the Court rejected the request for an out-of-turn early hearing, citing the existence of older pending matters. The Registry was directed to schedule the main petition for hearing in due course along with other matters from the relevant year. Consequently, the Civil Application was rejected, and the alternative prayer for an early hearing was denied.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
