SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Ori) 212

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

Advocates Appeared:
For the petitioner:Mr. T. Gulati, Sr. Advocate along with M/s. Jnanesh Mohanty, S. Gumansingh and S. Mohanty, Advocates
For the Opp. parties : Mr. T.K. Satapathy, Sr. Standing Cousnel along with Mr. Avinash Kedia, Jr. tanding Counsel for GST & Central Excise

In cases of revenue disputes, undue delay in adjudication of show cause notices violates fundamental rights and regulatory statutes, rendering them invalid.

Headnote:(A) Central Excise Act, 1944 - Section 11A and Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Demand-cum-show cause notices challenged - The petitioner sought to quash a show cause notice dated 10.09.2008 and subsequent notices and orders regarding Cenvat credit of over Rs.39 crores, alleging violation of provisions by claiming credit without proper transfer documentation following the merger with another company. The respondent argued that the notice was valid despite a long delay in proceedings. (Paras 1, 6, 22-24)

(B) Limitation - The Court held that the adjudication of the show cause notice was barred by limitation due to the excessive delay of over 9 years between the notice and its enforcement, violating principles of timely adjudication and due process. The Court emphasized that unjust delays in revenue matters must not prejudice the rights of petitioners. (Paras 12, 23)

(C) Reasonable time - The Court ruled that administrative actions must conclude within reasonable periods, ensuring transparency and fairness, especially in cases impacting businesses significantly. Delays undermine trust in the regulatory process. (Paras 10, 19)

Findings of Court:
The lengthy delay in adjudicating the show cause notice rendered it invalid as it violated the statutory framework of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Court quashed the demands and associated orders, upholding judicial principles of promptitude and fair hearing.

Result: Petition allowed, with no costs.

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.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top