M/s G.Tech Industries vs Union of India and another

This order shall dispose of Review Applications No.91, 92 and 99 of 2017 in CWP Nos.12747, 12749 and 12714 of 2016 as the issue involved in all

the three petitions is identical. However, the facts are being taken from RA No.91 of 2017 in CWP No.12747 of 2016.

RA No.91 of 2017 has been filed by applicant-respondent No.2 The Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise Commissionerate of Customs

and Central Excise, Chandigarh under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure for

review of the order dated 22.6.2016, Annexure A.1 passed by this Court in CWP No.12747 of 2016.

The petitioner-M/s G-Tech Industries filed CWP No.12747 of 2016 challenging the order dated 04.04.2016, Annexure P.1 passed by respondent

No.2 whereby differential Central Excise Duty demand of

Rs.7,08,38,008/- with interest and equivalent amount as penalty was confirmed. The petitioner contended that the impugned order had been passed in

violation of Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (in short, “the Actâ€). It was pleaded by the respondent authorities that the petitioner

misused the provisions of notification dated 14.11.2002 by showing production and clearance of excisable goods without actually manufacturing the

said goods.

Accordingly, a show cause notice dated 4.7.2011 for recovery of fraudulently availed refund of duty amounting to Rs.7,08,38,008/- during the period

from May 2007 to March 2008 and for treating the said amount deposited as representing duty of excise as amount required to be paid under the

provisions of Section 11D of the Act was issued. The petitioner neither submitted reply to the show cause notice nor appeared before respondent

No.2. Consequently, respondent No.2 passed the impugned order and confirmed the entire duty demand with interest and equivalent amount as

penalty.

The writ petitions were listed on 22.6.2016 in urgent motion matters. Notice was got accepted by learned counsel on behalf of the respondent No.1

on the same day. No opportunity was given to respondent No.2 to file any reply who passed the impugned order. On the same day, after hearing

learned counsel for the petitioner (s) and respondent No.1, the writ petitions were allowed and the impugned order dated 4.4.2016 passed by

respondent No.2 was set aside.

After perusing the averments made in the review applications and hearing learned counsel for the parties, the review applications are allowed. The

order dated 22.6.2016 passed by this Court in all the three writ petitions is recalled.

List the main writ petitions on 18.7.2018 alongwith CWP No.12615 of 2016. Meanwhile, reply be filed by respondent No.2 and notice be issued to

learned counsel for respondent No.1.