2017 (9) TMI 782

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... The petitioner is a registered dealer on the file of the respondent under the Finance Act, and has filed this Writ Petition challenging an order passed by the respondent, dated 31.01.2017, in Order-in-Original No.3 of 2017. By the said order, the respondent disallowed a sum of Rs. 1,25,657/-, being ineligible CENVAT credit availed by the petitioner and ordered the same to be recovered under Rul....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....egistered dealers and in the absence of enabling provision, the rejection of the credit is unsustainable. That the respondent failed to consider the various contentions raised by the petitioner in the reply, dated 03.11.2016, to the show cause notice, dated 12.07.2016. The respondent has failed to consider that the petitioner has satisfied the requirements of Rule 9 to claim CENVAT credit by produ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e respondent on the above submissions. 4. The first hurdle, the petitioner has to cross is to satisfy this Court the Writ Petition is maintainable, despite existence of an alternate remedy. In a long line of decisions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has deprecated the practice of Writ Courts interfering in matters, where there are efficacious alternate remedy provided under the relevant statute,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of principles of natural justice as the respondent had afforded an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner after receiving the reply to the show cause notice. Whether such opportunity is to the satisfaction of the petitioner or not and whether it can be construed as denial of reasonable opportunity is again a pure question of fact. Thirdly, there is no allegation of mala fides against t....