TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (4) TMI 693
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Excise, Vadodara. Although, this order is available on the ground of breach of principles of natural justice, petitioner approached this Court. 2. The Show Cause Notice dated 06.01.2017 involving the period from December 2011 to March 2016, has been issued upon the petitioners. According to the petitioners, the personal hearing of the matter at the time of adjudication of the Show Cause Notice, was on 17.02.2017 by the Anand Commissioner, as the proceedings were within the jurisdiction of Anand Commissioner. The officer concerned, who had heard the parties at the time of bifurcation of jurisdiction was transferred to Vadodara Jurisdiction and thus the Order in Original has been decided by the Commissioner, C.G.S.T. And Central Excise, V....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d final disposal of the present petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to restrain the Respondents, their servants and agents from taking any action against the Petitioner Company, including any action of coercive recovery, pursuant to OIO No.VAD-EXCUS-001-COM-32-17-18 dated 15.03.2018 thereby staying implementation and execution of this OIO No.VAD-EXCUS-001COM-32-17-18 dated 15.03.2018; (D) An ex-parte ad-interim relief in terms of para 21 (C) above may kindly be granted. (E) Any other further relief that may be deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also please be granted.' 3. On issuance of notice, the respondents appeared and filed its reply dated 20.09.2018, wherein it is contended that the peti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....th interest and penalty. 5. The factual as well as the legal issues in second show cause notice have been identical. The adjudication order was passed on 11.01.2019 by the respondent no.2, confirming the central excise demand of Rs. 10.80 Crore with interest (rounded off). The same had been challenged, pending the present petition, by way of a substantive Appeal before the Central Excise And Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ('the CESTAT' for short), Ahmedabad being the Appeal No.10576 of 2019 and the same has been allowed on merit as well as on the ground of limitation on 28.02.2020. It is, therefore, the say of the petitioner that the Tribunal since has held in favour of the petitioners entitling it to get the exemption which has ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the judgment and order by the adjudicating authority; however, in the interregnum, since in the case of the very petitioner, the second Show Cause Notice for the subsequent period from April 2016 to June 2017, which came against the petitioner when challenged to the CESTAT, the judgment has been delivered in favour of the petitioner on 28.02.2020. It is not in dispute that all questions regarding factual matrix as well as legal issues raised in the first Show Cause Notice and in the second Show Cause Notice are identical. There has been no challenge further on the part of either the revenue or the petitioner to the said order of CESTAT dated 28.02.2020 delivered in Excise Appeal No.10576 of 2019. 9. The two questions that may arise when....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hy;1, Division-­3, CGST and Central Excise, Vadodara. The reply on the part of the petitioner dated 21.08.2017 indicates the total value of the sulphur at Rs. 74,93,182.13 and duty involved including the cess being of Rs. 9,32,088.25. Therefore, we pertinently inquired from the learned standing counsel to get the details from the respective authorities of the exact amount of the duties, which the petitioner would be required to pay as per the decision of the CESTAT. 12. The Communication shared with us today by the learned counsel Mr.Viral Shah, points out that as per the order of the CESTAT dated 28.02.2020, the demand within limitation on the quantity of sulphur used in manufacture of Hydroxylamine sulphate (HX/HAS) and Phosphoric ....