Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Mcpi Pvt. Limited vs Union Of India & Ors on 19 September, 2025
19.09.2025
sayandeep
Sl. No. 1583-1584
ML
Ct. No. 05
WPA 18133 of 2022
With
CAN 1 of 2024
With
CAN 2 of 2025
MCPI Pvt. Limited
Vs.
Union of India & Ors.
With
WPA 5513 of 2021
MCPI Pvt. Limited & Anr.
Vs.
Union of India & Ors.
Mr. Abhratosh Majumder, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Rahul Dhanuka
Ms. Sreeja Chakraborty
..... for the petitioners
Mr. Vipul Kundalia, Sr. Advocate
Ms. Satabdi Sen
.... For the CGST authority
1. Challenging several show cause notices under the
provisions of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act,
1944 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act)
demanding differential duty along with the
consequential orders from the subject matter of
challenge before the customs excise and service tax
appellate tribunal eastern zonal Bench, Kolkata (in
short the "tribunal"). In connection with the said matter,
the tribunal by an order dated 5th October, 2009 was of the
view that the said case was not a fit case for total waiver of
duty. However, since according to the tribunal, the
show cause notice dated 4th March, 2003 for the
period from April 2000 to January 2002 of Rs.
WPA 18133 of 2024
WPA 5513 of 2021
11,27,94220/- was, prima facie, time barred
accordingly, the demands in the other show case
notices which were within the normal period of
limitation were sustained.
2. Having regard thereto, the petitioner in the interest of
the revenue was directed to deposit Rs. 19.42 crores.
It was further provided that upon payment the
remaining amount of duty, interest and penalty shall
be waived and the recovery stayed. In compliance of
such direction, the petitioner claims to have duly
deposited the said amount. The aforesaid appeal
finally came to be disposed of by the tribunal by an
order dated 28th March, 2019. The Tribunal by taking
note of the case made out had in effect declared that
the appellant shall not be entitled to the benefit of
revenue neutrality and accordingly it had upheld the
demand for the differential duty on merit. However,
insofar as the demand for duty beyond normal time
limit is concerned, the same was set aside.
Consequential penalties were also set aside. In the
interregnum, however, on the basis of a recovery
notice issued on 4th August, 2022, the sum of Rs.
169434730 was recovered from the petitioners' bank
account by debiting the same. Challenging the above
recovery, the aforesaid writ petition has been filed.
The petitioner had since applied before the tribunal
seeking for a clarification. However, when the
above matter came up for consideration on 30th
2
WPA 18133 of 2024
WPA 5513 of 2021
August, 2022, a Coordinate Bench of this Court was
pleased to request the tribunal to dispose of such
application for clarification filed by the petitioner
expeditiously after giving an opportunity of hearing to
the interested parties. Insofar as the recovery
proceedings are concerned, the same were made
subject to the order to be passed by the tribunal as
well as the final order to be passed in the writ petition.
3. The aforesaid application for clarification has since
been disposed of by the Tribunal by its order dated
31st March, 2023. The relevant portion is extracted
below:
3
WPA 18133 of 2024
WPA 5513 of 2021
4
WPA 18133 of 2024
WPA 5513 of 2021
4. After the aforesaid clarification was offered, the
petitioner has come up by way of this connected
application, inter alia, praying for disbursal of refund
of Rs. 1583859 recovered from the petitioner. By an
order dated 11th April, 2025 affidavits were invited
from the respondents. Pursuant to such direction, the
respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 have filed an affidavit-in- opposition in Court today which is taken on record. The affidavit-in-reply filed by the petitioners in Court today is also taken on record.
5. Mr. Majumdar, by drawing attention of this Court to paragraph 8 of the aforesaid affidavit-in-opposition would submit that though the respondents have 5 WPA 18133 of 2024 WPA 5513 of 2021 denied and disputed the sum of Rs. 15,63,80,959/- to be due, however, they have admitted that a sum of Rs. 14,27,61, 282/- is actually payable.
6. Having regard thereto, at this stage he only seeks that the aforesaid sum which has been admitted and acknowledged by the respondents be disbursed in favour of the petitioners.
7. Mr. Kundalia, learned senior advocate representing the respondents on the other hand would submit that the aforesaid acknowledgement is subject to the petitioner applying and complying with the other statutory formalities.
8. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, I am of the view that on the basis of the disclosure made in the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 to the connected application being CAN 2 of 2025, the application can be disposed of by permitting the petitioner to make an application in requisite format. If such application is filed within a period of 10 days from date, the respondents shall be obliged to process the same within a period of eight weeks thereafter.
9. Respondents are directed to supply to the petitioner with the copy of the prescribed proforma for applying for refund within 7 working days from the date of communication of this order.
10. The balance claim of the petitioner shall be considered with the writ petition. 6
WPA 18133 of 2024 WPA 5513 of 2021
11. In view of disposal of the application being CAN 2 of 2025, the application being CAN 1 of 2024 which is an application for early disposal of the writ petition be also disposed of.
(Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.) 7