ORISSA HIGH COURT: CUTTACK
B.R.SARANGI, G. SATAPATHY, JJ.
M/s. Neelachal Ispat Nigam Ltd. - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and Others - Opp. Parties
AFR W.P.(C) NO. 37472 Of 2023
Decided On : 14-05-2024
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments presented by the petitioner. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court's observation on the delay in adjudication. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. legal standards and implications of delay in adjudication. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. establishment of legal precedent regarding delay and limitations. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 6. conclusion and order of the court. (Para 23 , 24) |
JUDGMENT :
B.R. SARANGI, J.
1. M/s. Neelachal Ispat Nigam Limited, a Joint Venture Company registered under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 and promoted by M/s MMTC Limited and Industrial Promotion & Investment Corporation of Orissa Limited (IPICOL), having its factory premises located at Kalinga Nagar Industrial Complex, Duburi in the district of Jajpur, Odisha, having Central Excise Registration Certificate No. AAACN9433BXM001, engaged in manufacturing of ‘Pig Iron’ and ‘Billet’ falling under Chapter-72 and ‘Coke & Crude Tar’, falling under Chapter-27 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the demand-cum-show cause notice dated 10.09.2008 under Annexure-2 issued by the opposite party no.2; the consequential notices dated 05.12.2017 and 05.01.2018 issued under Annexure-3 (Colly.); and also the Order-in-Original dated 04.09.2023 under Annexure-9, whereby the demand made in the show cause notice dated 10.09.2008 has been confirmed.
2. The factual matrix of the case, in a nutshell, is that the petitioner, being a Public Limited Company, is primarily engaged in the manufacturing of ‘Pig Iron’ and ‘Billet’ falling under Chapter-72 and ‘Coke & Crude Tar’ falling under Chapter-27 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 in its factory located in Kalinga Nagar Industrial Complex, Jajpur. Another company, namely, M/s. Konark Met Coke Limited (KMCL), also situated in the same complex, has set up a Metallurgical Coke Plant along with a Captive Power Plant. The electricity generated was captively used by M/s. KMCL as well as by the Petitioner. M/s. KMCL is the manufacturer of Metallurgical Coke, Pearl Coke, Breeze Coke falling under Chapter-27 and Ammonium Sulphate falling under Chapter-31 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, having Central Excise Registration Certificate No. 1/Ch.27&31/KMCL.JPR/99 dated 01.03.1999. Subsequently, M/s KMCL amalgamated with the petitioner with all its assets and liabilities with effect from 08.12.2004, pursuant to the order dated 05.11.2004 passed by this Court in COPET No. 26 of 2004. Paragraphs-2 and 3 of the said order dated 05.11.2004 passed in COPET No. 26 of 2004 reads as under:-
“Para-2: That all the property, rights and powers of the transferor company specified in the scheme of amalgamation annexed hereto and all the other property, rights and powers of the transferor company be transferred without further act or deed to the transferee company and accordingly the same shall pursuant to section 394(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 be transferred to and vest in the transferee company for all estate and interest of the transferor company therein but subject nevertheless to all charges now affecting the same;
Para-3: That all the liabilities and duties of the transferor company be transferred without further act or deed to the transferee company and accordingly the same shall pursuant to Section 394(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 be transferred to and become the liabilities and duties of the transferee company.”
2.1. M/s KMCL on the date of merger was having unutilized Cenvat Credit balance amounting to Rs.39,17,30,118/ - (Rs.1,14,41,688/- on inputs and Rs.38,02,88,430/- on capital goods) in its Cenvat account. Consequent upon merger of M/s. KMCL with the petitioner, on the application of the petitioner dated 22.12.2004, the Jurisdictional Asst. Commissioner, Balasore Division, vide his letter dated 24.12.2004, allowed the petitioner to take back the unutilised Cenvat credit of Rs.
Duncans Agro Industries Ltd v. CCE
Anand Nishikawa Co. Ltd v. Comm. Of Central Excise
In cases of revenue disputes, undue delay in adjudication of show cause notices violates fundamental rights and regulatory statutes, rendering them invalid.
Show cause notices issued under the Central Excise Act, 1944, are invalid if based on non-statutory norms and issued beyond the limitation period prescribed by Section 11A(11).
Delay in conclusion of proceedings pursuant to show cause notices without proper explanation is unlawful and arbitrary, and the concept of call book is contrary to the statutory mandate.
Delay in adjudication of show cause notices is a violation of principles of natural justice.
Proceedings under section 11A of Act are adjudicatory proceedings and authority which decides same is a quasi-judicial authority. Such proceedings are strictly governed by statutory provisions. Secti....
Delayed adjudication attributable to the revenue violates procedural fairness and the principles of natural justice.
The legal principle established in the judgment is that the attempt to revive adjudication proceedings after an inordinate delay must be justified and reasonable, in line with the legal framework for....
The demand for CENVAT Credit was barred by limitation as the respondent disclosed all relevant details, and no evidence of willful misstatement or suppression was presented.
The extended period of limitation under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 can only be invoked with allegations of fraud, collusion, wilful mis-statement, suppression of facts, or contravention o....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.