AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mr. Chimanka, learned advocate, Senior Standing Counsel appears on behalf of appellant (Central Excise). He submits, there was duty demand of Rs.2,65,12,542/-, duly made for contravention of rule 8 (3A) in Central Excise Rules, 2002. The duty became payable on the assessee utilizing CENVAT credit of Rs.2,12,18,017/- during period of forfeiture from July, 2006 to February, 2008. The forfeiture was facility to pay in instalments as well as utilization of CENVAT credit. The Tribunal set aside the demand erroneously holding that the demand could not have been made without, inter alia, issuance of show cause notice under section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944. He submits, in the circumstances, questions of law arise, on which the appeal be admitted.
We find from order sheet that in spite of direction for issuance of notice and compliance therewith, assessee goes unrepresented. On query from Court Mr. Chimanka submits, appeal from decision of the Gujarat High Court in Indsur Global Ltd v. UOI is pending in the Supreme Court.
The appeal is admitted on the substantial question of law stated below.
For a demand to be made on contravention of rule 8(3A) in Central Excise Rules, 2002 regarding forfeiture of instalments and utilization of CENVAT credit, is it mandatory for it to be pursuant to show cause notice issued under section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with rule-14 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004?
Appellant will cause issuance of notice of appeal. As the question framed is purely one to be answered in law, the appeal will be heard on the appeal papers already on record.
List the appeal on 8th August, 2023.
………………………………