TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (2) TMI 14
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g its business and handles export, transportation of cars and involved in procurement of components required for manufacture of car and the packed in kits are known as CKD Kits (Completely Knocked Down) and the kits so packed are exported to Hyundai Assan Otomotive Sanayi, Turkey. 2. The petitioner states that they submitted an application dated 19.08.2009 for the registration as a manufacturer with Central Excise Department for the Manufacturing CKD Kits of automobiles and Electronic Control Units under Rule 9 of the Centralo Excise Rules 2002 issued by the Central Board of Excise and custom. The Central Excise Department, Poonamallee Division, had issued Central Excise Registration Certificate to the petitioner-company for manufacturing ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... rebate to the total extent of Rs. 1,49,69,821/-. The 4th respondent disputing the availability of the rebate claim on the ground that the process adopted by the petitioner does not amount to manufacture , issued a Show cause notice No.85 of 2011 dated 8/8/2011 to the petitioner. The petitioner replied to the show cause notice and also appeared for a personal hearing on 09/10/2011 and by the Order-in-Original No.23/2011 dated 14.11.2011, the 4th respondent granted refund of duty paid on inputs/components under Rule 18 of CER, 2002 read with Notification No.21/2004-CE(NT) dated 6/9/2004, which according to the petitioner the Notification Number was wrongly emntioned in the said order in original as 19/20040C(NT) dated 6/9/2004. Aggrieved by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te was allowed fraudulently and dishonestly by cheating and making false representations to gain undue pecuniary advantage through corrupt and illegal means while processing the claim application of the petitioner and thereby committed offence punsiable under Section 120-B IPC r/w.420 IPC and 13(2) r/w.13(1) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and registered a case in C.C.No.49/2013 on the file of Principal Special Judge for CBI cases, Chennai. The plea of the petitioner herein is untill the proceedings in the Appeals preferred by them before the 2nd respondent/department, is finally disposed of, the proceedings pending in C.C.No.49 of 2013, may be directed to be stayed. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents relied upon th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... goes and the prosecution may be quashed. But that principle will not apply in the case of the departmental proceeding as the criminal trial and the departmental proceeding are held by two different entities. Further, they are not in the same hierarchy. 5. Thus the respondents counsel contends that the proceedings in CESTAT and the proceedings in trial court are two different entitles and those proceedings can go on simultaneously and there is no bar for the same and if the petitioner/accused herein gets a favourable finding in the proceedings before the CESTAT, the same can be relied upon by him in the criminal proceedings, pending before the trial court and as such, there is no need to entertain the plea of the petitioner to stay the pr....