Writ Petition No. 14 of 2016. Case: Rohm and Hass (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | Writ Petition No. 14 of 2016 |
| Counsel | For Appellant:' Shri Janak Dwarkadas with Darius Shroff, Sr. Counsels, Shiraz Patodia and Ms. Priyanka Sharma Goswami, i/b Dua Associates and For Respondents: Shri Pradeep S. Jetly with A.S. Rao and Jitendra B. Mishra, Advs. |
| Judges | S.C. Dharmadhikari and G.S. Patel, JJ. |
| Issue | Constitution of India - Article 226 |
| Citation | 2016 (335) ELT 395 (Bom) |
| Judgement Date | February 16, 2016 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Order:
-
By this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are seeking issuance of a Writ of certiorari or a writ, order or direction in nature thereof calling for the records pertaining to the letters/notices of the respondents dated 7th April, 2014 Annexure-D and 24th September, 2015 Annexure-I and those issued to the customers of petitioner No. 1 seeking a refund of Cenvat credit and/or denying Cenvat credit Annexure-F to Annexures-F-1 to F-5. It is submitted that these be scrutinized for their legality and validity and thereafter be quashed and set aside.
-
The petitioner''s senior counsel Mr. Dwarkadas, on the earlier occasion and even today, raised several contentions the principal being that each of these actions are arbitrary, unconstitutional and unsustainable in law. It is the petitioner''s submission that the Notification dated 28th February, 2014, has been interpreted erroneously and thereby the petitioner is forced to obtain a fresh or additional registration as importer of excisable goods when the same is not at all required as the petitioner holds a general and omnibus registration as a dealer. Therefore, the specific registration as importer must give way to the general registration as a dealer.
-
Mr. Dwarkadas has relied upon the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, and particularly Rule 9(1) and its amendment by the subject Notification.
-
Mr. Dwarkadas would submit that though this Court recorded the statement of Mr. Jetly on the earlier occasion that no reversal of credit would take place unless a show cause notice is issued to all the parties whose names are mentioned in the list attached to the communication at Page 59 and equally to the petitioners, by the affidavit that is filed in reply, the Assistant Commissioner purports to conclude the issue. He has clarified the stand of the respondents and on a plain reading of the paragraphs to which our attention is invited by Mr. Dwarkadas, namely, at Pages 71 and 72 of the paper-book, it is submitted that this inconsistent and contrary or contradictory position would denote as to how the outcome of the proceedings would be now that the adjudication is going to be a formality and as the conclusion is already reached and recorded by this affidavit.
-
These and the other contentions were raised and we specifically enquired from Mr. Jetly as to why the affidavit is silent on what these statements on the earlier occasion were made and duly recorded by...
To continue reading
Request your trial