AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (10) TMI 461
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner in this Writ Petition challenges an order-in-original passed by the second respondent, dated 29.10.2010, in and by which, the second respondent disallowed Cenvat Credit availed by the petitioner and demanded the same under Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, read with Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994, apart from demanding interest and imposing penalty. 3. Against the order-in-original, dated 29.10.2010, the petitioner was entitled to file an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), Chennai, however, the petitioner did not file the appeal within the period of limitation as stipulated under Section 85 of the Finance Act and there was a delay of seven months and 11 days in filing the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he petitioner preferred Writ Appeal before the Hon'ble Division Bench against the said order in W.A.No.589 of 2016. The Hon'ble Division Bench by an elaborate order after referring to various decisions on the point, dismissed the Writ Appeal and the operative portion of the judgment is as follows:- 37. Section 85 of the Finance Act, is similar to Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962; Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 125 of the Electricity Act, 2003;Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the statutes referred to above, are self contained Acts and codes by themselves. The High Court or the Supreme Court, as the case may be, cannot direct the appellate authority to condone the dela....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the order-in-original, which was passed on 29.06.2010., i.e., after six years, after having failed in all their earlier attempts before the Appellate Authority and before this Court i.e., both before the Single Bench as well as the Hon'ble Division Bench. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the impugned order-in-original suffers from manifest errors and therefore, it can be interfered in a Writ Petition. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the factual averments set out in paragraph 19 of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition. Further, it is submitted that the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked, as the first show cause notice was issued upto....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itted that this belated challenge to the impugned proceedings, should be out rightly rejected. It is further submitted that the petitioner has not made out any case for interference in a Writ jurisdiction, the principles of natural justice has been fully complied with, the petitioner had been afforded opportunity, his objections were considered and clear cut finding has been recorded by the second respondent in the impugned order and in this regard, reference was made to paragraph 13 onwards of the impugned order. 8. After hearing the learned counsels at great length, this Court is of the considered view that the present challenge to the order-in-original passed in 2010, has to necessarily fail. This conclusion is supported by the follow....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....herefore, the petitioner cannot have a second round of litigation challenging the very same orders stating that they can raise the issues regarding the merits of the assessment. 10. As pointed out earlier, when they filed the previous Writ Petition, merits of the petition was canvassed, therefore, once over again the petitioner cannot be allowed to raise the same grounds and the petitioner is estopped from doing so. 11. With regard to the contention that extended period of limitation cannot be invoked and the applicability of the decision in the case of Nizam Sugar Factory(supra), it is relevant to note that in the petitioner's case, two show cause notices relating to a two different periods. The case before the Hon'ble Suprem....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the Finance Act, 1994. 14. After discussing about the factual details, the second respondent recorded that the service rendered by AHPL to the petitioner in the capacity of full-fledged Operator of the Hotel and arranging catering, rooms and thereby promoting hospitality service of the Five Star Hotel comparable standards. Secondly, service rendered by AHPL cannot be allowed as eligible input service for the petitioner so as to provide the relief in terms of Rule 6(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. The findings rendered by the second respondent is perfectly justified and valid. 15. The other contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the second respondent has committed a factual error by stating as if, the peti....