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 overturns order on excise duty payment, directs new hearing within 4 weeks to ensure fairness</h1> <h3>BILPOWER LTD. Versus UNION OF INDIA</h3> BILPOWER LTD. Versus UNION OF INDIA - 2010 (254) E.L.T. 30 (Bom.) Issues:Challenge to withdrawal of monthly payment of excise duty and restriction on CENVAT credit utilization.Validity of the order issued by one authority after the hearing conducted by another authority.Analysis:Issue 1: Challenge to withdrawal of monthly payment of excise duty and restriction on CENVAT credit utilizationThe petition challenged the order withdrawing the facility of monthly payment of excise duty and restricting the utilization of CENVAT credit for a specific period. The impugned order required the petitioner to pay excise duty for each consignment at the time of goods removal and to stop utilizing CENVAT credit during a specified period. The petitioner was allowed to take CENVAT credit during this period for future duty payments. The petitioner contended that the order exceeded the scope of the show cause notice, which initially proposed a three-month restriction on CENVAT credit but was extended to six months in the final order. The petitioner argued that the authority issuing the notice did not pass the final order, raising concerns about the legality of the process. In response, the respondent supported the order, stating that once a hearing is conducted by one authority, it is not necessary for another authority to pass the final order. The respondent also argued that the extension of the restriction period from three to six months did not prejudice the petitioner.Issue 2: Validity of the order issued by one authority after the hearing conducted by another authorityThe court considered the discrepancy between the authority issuing the show cause notice and the authority passing the final order. The court noted that the order extending the restriction period to six months deviated from the initial proposal of three months, raising questions about procedural fairness. After hearing both parties, the court set aside the impugned order and directed that the Member (Central Excise), Government of India, New Delhi, should hear the petitioner and pass a reasoned order within four weeks, ensuring compliance with the principles of natural justice. The court emphasized that this decision was based on the unique circumstances of the case and should not serve as a precedent. The petitioner was instructed to cooperate with the Member (Central Excise) and attend the hearing without seeking adjournments. The court clarified that setting aside the impugned order did not imply a judgment on the case's merits, leaving all questions and arguments open for the determination of the Member (Central Excise). The court disposed of the petition without costs, emphasizing that the ruling was specific to the case at hand.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
