TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (10) TMI 935
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e basis of the application is a sum of Rs. 14,35,147/-. According to the petitioner, this amount has been unilaterally quantified by the Central Excise Department under its communication dated 29.12.2017, reading as follows: OC.No.1/38/2017 Date:29.12.2017 To M/s.D Prabhu (HUF) No.91, Poonamallee, High Road, Manavel Na....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to be rejected by way of the impugned order issued in Form 3 without affording any opportunity to the petitioner to support its case. No alternate demand or reasoning is set out to justify the rejection of the declaration or attributing any lapse to the declaration filed. 4. Straightaway, the quantification put forth by the revenue is liable to be rejected since it is not supported by any demand of equal amount upon the petitioner and is wholly adhoc. A unilateral quantification is circulated by way of a computation sheet dated nil filed in the compilation of documents dated 12.08.2021. The periods for which the demands are raised are 2012-13 to June 2017-18. Mrs.Sheela would fairly admit that no such demand has been raised and justifies t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e period 2014 to 2017 and the Department had not chosen to raise a demand for the prior periods on the ground of bar of limitation. Thus, the declaration offers an amount in excess of what it needed to, and the petitioner has been more generous than needed. 7. The second case relied on by the revenue is Thought Blurb Vs. Union of India and Others (2020 SCC Online Bom 1909), wherein a request for opportunity to be given to the petitioner prior to rejection of declaration was negated by the Bombay High Court on the ground that such opportunity was required to be given only if the estimate of the amount, payable under the declaration as computed by the Department, exceeded that made by the petitioner in the declaration. At para 38, the Bench ....