TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 1394
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntral Value Added Tax ('CENVAT') credit. The Petitioner also seeks consequential adjustment of the aforesaid amount against the duty liability. 2. The controversy arises in the context of the Petitioner's manufacturing activities during the period January 2005 to December 2005. The Petitioner had discontinued payment of Central Excise duty on Stainless-Steel Cladding and Railing on the belief that the activity did not amount to manufacture. The Petitioner subsequently admitted its liability and approached the Settlement Commission under the provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act']. 3. The principal grievance of the Petitioner is that, pursuant to the directions of this Court dated 11.05.2010 in W.P.(C.) No.3652/2007, the Settlement Commission was required to examine the claim of reversal of CENVAT credit amounting to Rs. 31,93,569/-. According to the Petitioner, instead of examining the material already placed on record, the Settlement Commission required production of further statutory records and invoices and thereafter rejected the claim. FACTUAL MATRIX: 4. The facts, insofar as relevant for the present controversy, are briefl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... returns, by themselves, could not establish the correctness of the claimed reversal. It was necessary to correlate the entries with the corresponding statutory records and input invoices. The Respondents further contend that despite repeated opportunities, the Petitioner failed to furnish the requisite documents and therefore cannot assail the conclusion reached by the Settlement Commission. 10. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, the Settlement Commission, upon considering the material placed on record and the submissions advanced by the parties, proceeded to pass the Impugned Order rejecting the Petitioner's claim for adjustment of the CENVAT credit reversal of Rs. 31,93,569/-. The Petitioner has assailed the said conclusion in the present proceedings, giving rise to the contentions noticed hereinafter. CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES: 11. Heard learned Counsel representing the Petitioner and learned Senior Standing Counsel representing the Respondents and, with their able assistance, perused the material placed on record. 12. Learned Counsel representing the Petitioner, while assailing the Impugned Order, has made the following submissions: i. Impugned Order trav....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... upon by the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore & Ors. MANU/SC/1052/2023. In Paragraph No.10 of Kotak Mahindra, the Supreme Court observed as under: "10. We are fortified in our view by the judgment of this Court in Jyotendrasinhji v. S.I. Tripathi, 1993 Supp (3) SCC 389, wherein it was observed that a Court, while exercising powers under Articles 32, 226 or 136 of the Constitution of India, as the case may be, may not interfere with an order of the Commission, passed in exercise of its discretionary powers, except on the ground that the order contravenes provisions of the Act or has caused prejudice to the opposite party. Interference may also be open on the grounds of fraud, bias or malice. Therefore, this Court has carved out a very narrow scope for judicial review of the Commission's orders, passed in the exercise of its discretionary powers. Hence, we hold that sufficiency of the material and particulars placed before the Commission, based on which the Commission proceeded to grant immunity from prosecution and penalty as contemplated under Section 245H of the Act, are beyond the scope of judici....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the Settlement Commission exceeded the directions contained in the judgment dated 11.05.2010 also does not persuades this Court to interfere. The order of this Court required the Settlement Commission to re-examine the claim on the basis of the material already placed before it and expressly permitted the Settlement Commission, if it required any information, to call for the same from either party. The Respondents' case that the further documents were sought for the purpose of verifying the correctness of the claim cannot, in the facts of the present case, be characterised as an exercise wholly outside the jurisdiction conferred by the order dated 11.05.2010. 21. The fact that the Settlement Commission required supporting statutory records, including RG-23A Part II registers and input invoices, cannot by itself establish that it acted beyond its jurisdiction. Whether such documents were necessary for proper verification of the claim, and whether the documents already furnished were sufficient, are matters relating to the appreciation of the material before the Settlement Commission. 22. Equally, the contention that the Department had not disputed the availment of credit du....