2021 (4) TMI 824 - HC - Central Excise

High Court clarifies liability for ISD and GTA credits, emphasizes importance of considering all materials submitted

The Madras High Court ruled in a case concerning a petitioner in the cement manufacturing industry's liability for ISD credit and GTA credit from January ... ISD credit - GTA credit - delay on the part of the petitioner in responding to the communication - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- There was absolutely no delay on the part of the petitioner. On the other hand, the relevant materials furnished by the petitioner were not taken note of before passing the impugned order on 30.12.2020. Therefore, the adjudicating authority has to necessarily revisit the issue by taking note of all the particulars and the materials furnished by the petitioner on 30.12.2020. Of-course, the adjudicating authority will take note of the earlier reply submitted by the petitioner herein. Interest of justice requires that personal hearing is afforded to the petitioner. The learned Senior Counsel would state that the petitioner would appear promptly on the date to be fixed by the adjudicating authority for personal hearing and that they would not drag on the matter. The petitioner through his senior counsel gives an undertaking that they would extend the fullest co-operation for expeditious conclusion of the adjudication proceedings post remand - The matter is remitted to the file of the first respondent to pass order afresh in accordance with law - Petition allowed by way of remand. Issues: Liability of petitioner for ISD credit and GTA credit for the period from January 2008 to October 2012.The judgment by the Madras High Court dealt with the liability of a petitioner engaged in cement manufacturing for ISD credit and GTA credit for a specific period. The case involved a show cause notice issued in 2009, with the adjudicating authority dropping proceedings for ISD credit but holding the petitioner liable for GTA credits. The petitioner promptly responded to requests for information, but the range officer erroneously informed the adjudicating authority that the petitioner did not provide the required documents. The court noted the lack of delay on the petitioner's part and emphasized the importance of considering all materials submitted. The judgment quashed the impugned order, remitting the matter back to the first respondent for a fresh decision, with instructions for a personal hearing for the petitioner. The petitioner undertook to cooperate fully for an expeditious resolution of the matter. The writ petition was allowed, with no costs awarded.