Full Text
Translation output
$-31 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
WP(C)814/2019,CM APPL.3591-3592/2019
M/SSRVPRINTP^KPLTO tV Naveen Malik,Advocate.
WP(C)814/2019,CM APPL.3591-3592/2019
M/SSRVPRINTP^KPLTO tV Naveen Malik,Advocate.
VERSUS
unionOFINDIA &ORS. , ,rCsr4°"SLp
Through: Mr.Jasmeet Singh,CGSC,Mr.Fraaeep Jha Mr Devank Maheshwary,Advocate,forR-1.
Mr.'HarpreetSingh,Sr.StandingCounselforR-2,3 &4.
Through: Mr.Jasmeet Singh,CGSC,Mr.Fraaeep Jha Mr Devank Maheshwary,Advocate,forR-1.
Mr.'HarpreetSingh,Sr.StandingCounselforR-2,3 &4.
CORAMi
HON'BLEMR.JUSTICES.RAVINDRABHAT
HON'BLEMR.JUSTICEPRATEEKJALAN ORIIER
0/„ 25.01.2019
Issue Notice.
Mr.HarpreetSingh,SeniorStandingCounselfortherespondent accepts notice.
The petitioner is a Central Excise assessee; it manufactured printed/laminated plastic film and other related goods covered by headingNo.48and49oftheCentralExciseTariffAct,1985.Afire occurredin2011initsfactoryresultinginlossofunutilisedinputsand raw material. Thejurisdictional Assistant Commissioner ofCentral
Excisewasapparentlyintimatedon20.05.2011,asalsothelocalpolice authorities.Theinsuranceclaim wassettled atRs.1,23,90,301/.This
2019:DHC:7761-DB \ V iroLr Sincetheinsuranceclaint.wasuitintatelysettledandremittedto s ow cause not,ce was issued to it alleging infringement ofRule
0 t e CENVAT Credit Rules 2004. The writ petitioner
™,y protested. Ultimately the Additional Contntissioner of ra xcse confirmed a demand of?9,07,947/- together with merestaswe,,aspenaltyat.5,02,082/-.TfrepetitionerClaimsthattht derofdieAdditionalCommissionerwasnotbroughttoitsnoticefor various reasons, including the reason that when served upon its concemedemployee,hewasnotavailable.Inthesecircumstances he could not avail the appellate remedy within the time. When it did pproach theCommissionerofAppeals,theappeal wasdismissedas inie barred.ItsfurtherappealtoCESTATton onthesameground. ° ^"ejectedsumm^ily
Thiscourthasconsideredtheavementsinthispetitionandalso card counsel for the parties. The petitioner's limited grievance in
CENVATcredit,whichwastheboneofcontentionwasundoubtedly untestedmtheshowcausenotice.Havingregardtothefactualmatrix preferred by the petitioner shall be considered now on the merits, subjectto its depositing requisite pre-deposit ofthe mandatory 7.5% amount of duty and penalty within four weeks. The Commissioner shall issue notice after satisfying himself that these conditions are complied with and decide the appeal on its merit. All rights and contentions ofthe parties are reserved.
The writpetition is disposed ofinthe aforesaidterms.
S.RAVINDRABHAT,J
• «*
PRATEEK JALAN,J JANUARY 25,2019/akv
HON'BLEMR.JUSTICEPRATEEKJALAN ORIIER
0/„ 25.01.2019
Issue Notice.
Mr.HarpreetSingh,SeniorStandingCounselfortherespondent accepts notice.
The petitioner is a Central Excise assessee; it manufactured printed/laminated plastic film and other related goods covered by headingNo.48and49oftheCentralExciseTariffAct,1985.Afire occurredin2011initsfactoryresultinginlossofunutilisedinputsand raw material. Thejurisdictional Assistant Commissioner ofCentral
Excisewasapparentlyintimatedon20.05.2011,asalsothelocalpolice authorities.Theinsuranceclaim wassettled atRs.1,23,90,301/.This
2019:DHC:7761-DB \ V iroLr Sincetheinsuranceclaint.wasuitintatelysettledandremittedto s ow cause not,ce was issued to it alleging infringement ofRule
0 t e CENVAT Credit Rules 2004. The writ petitioner
™,y protested. Ultimately the Additional Contntissioner of ra xcse confirmed a demand of?9,07,947/- together with merestaswe,,aspenaltyat.5,02,082/-.TfrepetitionerClaimsthattht derofdieAdditionalCommissionerwasnotbroughttoitsnoticefor various reasons, including the reason that when served upon its concemedemployee,hewasnotavailable.Inthesecircumstances he could not avail the appellate remedy within the time. When it did pproach theCommissionerofAppeals,theappeal wasdismissedas inie barred.ItsfurtherappealtoCESTATton onthesameground. ° ^"ejectedsumm^ily
Thiscourthasconsideredtheavementsinthispetitionandalso card counsel for the parties. The petitioner's limited grievance in
CENVATcredit,whichwastheboneofcontentionwasundoubtedly untestedmtheshowcausenotice.Havingregardtothefactualmatrix preferred by the petitioner shall be considered now on the merits, subjectto its depositing requisite pre-deposit ofthe mandatory 7.5% amount of duty and penalty within four weeks. The Commissioner shall issue notice after satisfying himself that these conditions are complied with and decide the appeal on its merit. All rights and contentions ofthe parties are reserved.
The writpetition is disposed ofinthe aforesaidterms.
S.RAVINDRABHAT,J
• «*
PRATEEK JALAN,J JANUARY 25,2019/akv
JUDGMENT