TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 1062
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8 appellant intimated the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Mehsana that it would avail the option of maintaining separate inventory in respect of inputs used in manufacture of exempted products and would not be taking credit on such inputs. Similarly, the appellants vide their letter dated 01.07.1999 intimated the department that they would be availing the option of maintaining separate inventory of accounts in respect of the inputs procured for manufacturing exempted product. Thus, appellants have been maintaining separate account of the inputs received and used in the manufacture of exempted final products namely HCO and refined castor oil. The appellants vide their letter dated 02.04.2001 intimated the Assistant Commissioner Excise, Books and records maintained by them. 2.1 Thus, the appellant has used common inputs like Hydrogen Gas and Nickel Catalyst, in the manufacture of dutiable and exempted final products. During the period from 2001-02 to 2005-06, the appellants have taken credit on Nickel catalyst and Hydrogen gas used in the manufacture of dutiable final products only. The total credit taken by the appellants during this period on Nickel catalyst works out ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erification then there was no requirement to pass any order. No verification was done within two months as contemplated by the above mentioned section. After nearly ten years, the appellant received the impugned order demanding differential duty. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has filed the present appeal before this Tribunal. 2.5 The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Commissioner is not sustainable. The impugned order has been passed on the application made by the appellant on 25.10.2010 in terms of Section 69 to 73 of the Finance Act, 2010. Under these Sections, the Commissioner of Central Excise shall, on receipt of an application under Sub- Section (2), verify the correctness of the amount paid within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the application and in case the amount so paid is found to be less than the amount payable, he shall call upon the applicant to pay the differential amount along with interest, which shall be paid within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of the communication from the Commissioner in this regard. Thus, this section clearly prescribed time limit for v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Excise (Second Amendment) Rules, 200, published in the official Gazette vide notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) number G.S.R. 203(E), dated the 1st March, 2000, and subsequently substituted as rule 57AD by rule 5 of the Central Excise [Second Amendment] Rules, 2000, published in the Gazette of India, vide notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) number G.S.R. 298 (E), dated the 31st March, 2000, shall stand amended and shall be deemed to have been amended retrospectively, in the manner specified in column (3) of the Fifth Schedule on and from and up to the corresponding date specified in column (4) of that Schedule against the rules specified in column (2) of that Schedule. (2) Where a person opts to pay the amount in accordance with the provisions as amended by subsection (1), he shall pay the amount along with interest specified thereunder and make an application to the Commissioner of Central Excise along with documentary evidence and a certificate from a Chartered Accountant or a Cost Accountant certifying the amount of input credit attributable to the inputs used ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as found during verification. The provisions as mentioned above, were not complied with and no verification was done within two months by the learned Commissioner and after nearly ten years, impugned order demanding differential duty was issued. 4.3 In Shree Shakambari Silk Mills vs. Union of India reported at 2017 (12) TMI 712, Gujarat High Court has cited the judgment delivered in Siddhi Vinayak Syntex Pvt Ltd vs. Union of India and Ors. dated 07.03.2017 in SCA No. 19437 of 2016 in which Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has held as follows:- "23. Insofar as the show cause notice in the instant case is concerned, the same has been issued under section 11A of the Act. Proceedings under section 11A of the Act are adjudicatory proceedings and the authority which decides the same is a quasi-judicial authority. Such proceedings are strictly governed, by the statutory provisions. Section 11A of, the Act as it stood at the relevant time when the show cause notice came to be 'issued, provided for issuance of notice within six months from the relevant date in ordinary cases and within five years in case where the extended period of limitation is invoked. Section 11A thereafter ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....isdom has prescribed a particular time limit, the CBEC has no power or authority to extend such time limit for years on end merely to await a decision in another case. The adjudicatory authority is required to decide each case as it comes, unless restrained by an order of a higher forum. This court is of the view that the concept of call book created by the CBEC, which provides for transferring pending cases to the call book, is contrary to the statutory mandate, namely, that the adjudicating authority is required to determine the duty within the time frame specified by the legislature as far as possible. Moreover, as discussed hereinabove, there is no power vested in the CBEC to issue such instructions under any statutory provision, inasmuch as, neither section 37B of the Central Excise Act nor rule 31 of the rules, envisage issuance of such directions. The concept of call book is, therefore, contrary to the provisions of the Central Excise Act and such instructions are beyond the scope of the authority of the CBEC. Transferring matters to the call book being contrary to the provisions of law, the explanation put forth by the respondents for the delay in concluding the proceedings....