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>Revision application decision due in 3 months, show cause notice on hold</h1> <h3>Five Star Agrico Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India</h3> Five Star Agrico Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India - 2017 (345) E.L.T. 203 (Guj.) Issues:Challenge to recovery notice issued pursuant to Order-in-Original dated 30-8-2013; Delay in deciding revision application filed against Order-in-Appeal dated 28-1-2014.Analysis:The petitioner, a manufacturing company, exported goods and claimed rebate of central excise duty paid on inputs used in manufacturing. The waste scrap generated during manufacturing was exempt from duty. However, after a communication from Excise authorities in 2005, the petitioner stopped paying duty on waste scrap clearance. Subsequently, the Department objected to the rebate claim due to alleged violation of notification conditions, leading to a demand notice. The Order-in-Original dated 30-8-2013 confirmed the demand within a specific period but dropped it beyond the limitation period. An appeal and stay application were rejected by the Order-in-Appeal dated 28-1-2014, prompting the petitioner to file a revision application under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act.The petitioner argued that despite legal challenges pending, show cause notices were issued, and the revision application remained undecided since 2014. Citing a precedent, the petitioner sought a direction to conclude the proceedings within a specific timeframe. The Court, considering the delay and the pending revision, directed the Revisional Authority to decide the application within three months from the Court's order date. It further instructed that pending the revision's decision, the show cause notice should not proceed, with the petitioner undertaking to cooperate in the revision application hearing.In a comparative reference to a Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment, the Court noted the equivalence in rank between the Revisional Authority and the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). Accordingly, it suggested that the case be decided by an officer holding the rank of Joint Secretary (Revisional Authority), senior to the Commissioner (Appeals). The Court disposed of the petitions with the aforementioned directions, without imposing any costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
