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>Writ Petition Admitted in Central Excise Dispute: Deposit Orders, Sabka Vishwas Scheme, Appellate Tribunal</h1> <h3>Smt. Shakuntala Devi Agarwal Versus Union of India & Ors.</h3> The High Court admitted a writ petition filed by a petitioner in a dispute involving Central Excise duty recovery and penalty imposition. The petitioner's ... Pending appeal or not - HELD THAT:- Since, it is submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that service has already been effected upon the respondents, the respondents are at liberty to file affidavit-in-opposition within a period of three weeks from date, affidavit-in-reply thereto, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter. Matter to appear in the monthly list for the month of August, 2020 under the heading ‘for hearing’. In the meantime without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both parties, the petitioner shall deposit a sum of ₹ 15 lakhs with the learned Registrar General of this Court by a bank draft within 15 (fifteen) days from date. Issues:1. Central Excise duty recovery and penalty imposition on the petitioner.2. Dismissal of appeal for noncompliance of deposit order.3. Writ petition filed for the pending appeal and tax settlement under 'Sabka Vishwas' Scheme.4. Dispute regarding the pending status of the appeal and tax amount liability.5. Admission of the writ petition for hearing and directions for further proceedings.Central Excise Duty Recovery and Penalty Imposition:The petitioner, engaged in manufacturing and trading works, received a show cause notice in 2008 for recovery of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 78,28,203.79. Despite the petitioner's reply and appeal to drop the proceedings, an order was passed by the Excise department directing the deposit of duty and penalty. Subsequent appeals and noncompliance led to dismissal of the appeal in 2010.Dismissal of Appeal for Noncompliance:The petitioner's appeal before the Central Excise and Services Appellate Tribunal faced dismissal due to failure to deposit the required sum, leading to subsequent legal actions and orders for depositing varying amounts. The dismissal was based on noncompliance with the deposit order issued earlier.Writ Petition and 'Sabka Vishwas' Scheme:Following dismissal of the appeal, the petitioner filed a writ petition seeking resolution under the 'Sabka Vishwas' Scheme introduced by the Central Government in 2019 for legacy dispute resolution. The High Court directed the petitioner to deposit a specific amount and instructed the Appellate Tribunal to hear the appeal promptly.Dispute Regarding Pending Appeal and Tax Liability:A key issue arose regarding the pending status of the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, impacting the tax amount liability. The petitioner contended that the appeal was still pending, while the respondents claimed it was disposed of in 2012. The determination of the appeal status would significantly affect the tax liability amount.Admission of Writ Petition and Further Directions:Considering the dispute over the pending appeal and tax liability, the High Court admitted the writ petition for hearing. The Court directed the petitioner to deposit a specified sum with the Registrar General and outlined procedures for maintaining the deposited amount during the pendency of the writ petition. The resolution of the amount's ownership was deferred to the final hearing of the writ petition.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
