TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (11) TMI 1393
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed SCNs. The primary ground raised is the bar of limitation, which is stated to be in contravention of the time set out under Section 11A (11) of the Act. 3. The following are the admitted facts that flow from the rival submissions advanced. SCNs were initially issued on different dates, being 11.02.1999 (WP.Nos.17202 and 17201 of 2020), 27.11.2000 (WP.No.17208 of 2020), 05.11.2001 (WP.No.17210 of 2022), 23.06.1999 (WP.No.17205 of 2020) and 15.02.1999 (WP.No.17204 of 2020). 4. The petitioner responded to the SCNs on various dates setting forth its objections to the proposals contained therein. Personal hearing notices were issued, very proximate to the date of SCNs, and the exchange of information continued for a brief period. 5. As regards show cause notice assailed in WP.No.17204 of 2020 dated 15.02.1999, there was investigation by the audit wing of the Central Excise Department that was of the view that the Assessing Officer ought to have enhanced the proposal contained in the SCN and that the demand of Rs.21.7 lakhs (approx) that was proposed, fell short of the appropriate demand that ought to have been Rs.28.1 lakhs (approx) instead. 6. As far as the other SCNs are concern....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....--------------------- **** is stated that credit in respect of inputs contained in ***** products viz., 51 MTs lying in RG-1 stock as on 1998 has not been worked out and reversed. In this connection, it is stated that Salem Steel Plant has **** a sum of Rs. 26,41,845/- towards excise duty at 15% **** on the CRSS Strips for a quantity of 235.900 MTs lying ***** stock in the Blanking Line on the beginning of 2.6.1998. The ***** -up for 235.900 MTs is given below: Finished Blanks : 51 MTs WIP : 133 MTs Total : 184 MTs Entity of CRSS Strips required for 184 MTs is 235.900 MTs. Therefore, it is incorrect to say that the assessee has not ***** credit for 51 MTs of finished products lying in RG-1 ***** as on 2.6.1998. **** is stated by audit that the assessee has paid 8% of the value **** exempted product at the time of clearance. This is not ****. The assessee proposed to pay 8% vide their letter ro.FA-****** dated 29.6.1998 for which a communication was sent to SSP **** Range vide letter OC No.494/98 dated 29.7.1998 that the ***** taken is irregular and advised SSP to reverse the same and *** separate inventory of the inputs. ****, it has also been stated by the audit th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oils. Only after receipt of orders from the Power Driven Pump Manufacturers, the CRSS Sheets are identified from a large number of dutiable CRSS Sheets and a part quantity is removed and cleared for the above category of Power Driven Pump Manufacturers at NIL rate of duty. In the CRM, almost all CRSS products are sold on payment of duty other than those supplied to the above category of manufacturers/100% EOUs and for Export. Therefore, it is clear that both dutiable and exempted category of products are manufactured from a common input viz., Hot Rolled Stainless Steel Coils. As the exemption for captive consumption (notification No.67/95-**** dated 16.3.1995) is not available for manufacture of exempted final products supplied to the above category of pump manufacturers. SSP was asked to pay excise duty on the input Hot Rolled Stainless Steel coils at the rate of 15%. They simultaneously availed MODVAT Credit to the extent of 95% of such duty paid. On perusal of Rule 57CC(1) of Central Excise Rules, it is seen that "Where a manufacturer is engaged in the manufacture of any final product which is chargeable to duty as well as any other (final product which is exempted from the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le Value for 1 MT, of : Rs. 89,000/- CRSS supplied to Power Driven Pump Manufacturers. (iv) Reversal of Credit at 8% on (iii) above: Rs. 7,120/- Total liability on SSP on account of notification : Rs. 18,220/- no. 5/98CE dated 2.6.1998, as per the interpretation given by audit. The rationale behind the reversal of MODVAT Credit as envisaged under Rule 57CC is explained in Trade Notice No.73/96 ***** dated 25.7.1996. A copy of the relevant extract is enclosed. In page 4 of the Trade Notice it is mentioned that "when the manufacturer clears the fully exempted final product, he is required to reverse the credit taken on the inputs contained in the exempted final product. This procedure is quite cumbersome and many a time, in the absence of any input-output correlation, it is difficult to determine whether the reversal of credit has been correct or not. In order to circumvent this problem, a provision has been made by inserting a new rule 57CC.....". Normally, an exemption notification is given to any category of assesses only to provide certain benefits to motivate them towards fostering industrial development. Therefore, interpretation of the notification should be view....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....which the department has gone in appeal to the appropriate authority. (ii) Cases where injunction has been issued by Supreme Court/High Court/CEGAT, etc. (iii) Cases where audit objections are contested. (iv) Cases where the Board has specifically ordered the same to be keptpending and to be entered into the call book. 16. Clause (iii) of the above Circular relates to the transfer of cases where audit objections are contested by the Assessing Authority, as in the present case, where objections have been raised by the Assessing Authorities concerned, to the objections raised by audit. It is the case of the revenue that since the present cases falls under category (iv) above, the transfer of the SCNs to the call book is justified. 17. I agree with the revenue in this regard. It is necessary that the cases be transferred to call book to ensure that the SFV is completed and a stand be taken as to whether the position adopted by the Assessing Authority or that directed by the Audit Department must be pursued. 18. However, such reference cannot be exploited as a methodology to protract proceedings unlimitedly. Reference to call book was only to provide some elbow room to various....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r sub-section (11) being 'where it is possible to do so' would stand justified by the sequence of events that have been noted in the matter as above, my categoric conclusion is that it does not. There are admittedly, absolutely no circumstances warranting or justifying the pendency of the SCNs on the call book for 21 long years. 24. I draw support in this regard from the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab Vs. Bhatinda District Co-Op. Milk P. Union Ltd. [2007 (217) E.L.T. 325 (S.C.)] and Government of India Vs. Citedal Fine Pharmaceuticals [1989 (42) E.L.T. 515 (S.C.)] 25. The ratio of the aforementioned judgements have been applied by various High Courts that have adopted the same view. (See: J.M.Baxi& Co. Vs. Government of India [2016 (336) E.L.T. 285 (Mad.)]; Tablets (India) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner, Chennai [2018 (11) G.S.T.L. 162 (Mad.)]; Sunder System Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India [2020 (33) G.S.T.L. 621 (Del.)]; Reliance Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India [2019 (368) E.L.T. 854 (Bom.)]; Shirish Harshavadan Shah Vs. Deputy Director, E.D., Mumbai [2010 (254) E.L.T. 259 (Bom.)]; Transworld Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Government of I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iew that the concept of the call book, created by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, and transfer of pending cases to the call book, is contrary to the statutory mandate. Such transfer provides for an extrastatutory period of limitation, impermissible and contrary to law. 30. The Union of India has carried the matter in SLP to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and notice has been issued, limited to the question of whether Circular No. 162/73/95-CX dated 14.12.1995, which provides for transfer of cases to the call book is in conformity with the provisions of Section 37B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with the relevant Rules. Significantly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not thought it fit to intervene in the order passed by the High Court setting aside the adjudication proceedings. 31. A subsequent development is captured in Circular No. 1053/2/2017-CX dated 10.03.2017 issued in relation to 'show cause notice, adjudication proceedings, closure of proceedings and recovery of duty', rescinding the 1989 Circular and streamlining the procedure for reference to be made to the call book. 32. Conspicuous is the deletion of cases relating to contested audit objections,....